Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: I wish to inform the House that I have received a letter from the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) informing me of his resignation  as Chair of the Treasury Committee, following his appointment to the Government. Arrangements for the election of his successor will be as follows: nominations will close at 12 noon on Tuesday 8 November, and nomination forms will be available from the Vote Office, Table Office and Public Bill Office. Following the House’s decision of 16 January 2020, only Members from the Conservative party may be candidates. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 9 November, from 11 am to 2.30 pm.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Hate Crime

Matt Western: What recent assessment she has made of trends in the levels of police-recorded hate crimes targeting individuals on the basis of their (a) race, (b) religion, (c) sexual orientation, (d) disability and (e) transgender identity.

Mims Davies: I greatly welcome the fact that people feel more willing to report hate crime. We have seen an increase of 26% in recorded incidents and believe that the biggest driver of it is the welcome improvement in police recording. Let me be clear: hate crime is a scourge on communities and will not be tolerated, which is why we are committed to reducing all crime, including hate incidents, and are on track to recruit 20,000 extra police officers.

Matt Western: According to the Office for National Statistics, nationally we have seen a sixfold increase in hate crime over the past decade. Locally, in the recent efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy inspections of Warwickshire police, criticism was made of the way in which the force supports victims in the aftermath of such crimes. This was felt by a constituent who was physically and racially assaulted; his assailant was charged with physical damage of a phone after Warwickshire police failed to complete a case action plan sent to them by the Crown Prosecution Service. Can the Minister  advise us of how frequently she meets her colleagues in the Home Office? What is being done to arrest this rise in violent crime?

Mims Davies: As I hope the hon. Gentleman will see, I am personally committed to ensuring the best possible response to these terrible crimes and, indeed, to all crimes. There is an online hate crime hub, True Vision, which police can now directly work with; he mentions a constituent’s case, and victims of online hate can submit reports and get the right support, which is equally important. That is there on both sides—it is for the police also.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Women and Equalities, Caroline Nokes.

Caroline Nokes: In his question, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) did not include hate crimes committed against women, yet we know that the Nottinghamshire police force is doing some great pilot work on recording misogyny as a hate crime in the incidents it encounters. Will the Minister update us on how that pilot is going and whether there are plans to roll it out further? What progress is the Home Office making on its work and consultation on tackling public sexual harassment, which is one of those significant crimes that impacts women every day?

Mims Davies: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I am very interested in both those issues. The consultation on public sexual harassment has been completed and I am currently looking at it. On misogyny as a hate crime, I am aware of the Nottinghamshire police work. It is absolutely right that a number of police forces are choosing of their own volition to record those particular crimes. I will update her further in writing, because there is more to say.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State, Anneliese Dodds.

Anneliese Dodds: I welcome the new Minister for Women and Equalities to her place.
With reference to the previous question, I should of course say that making misogyny a hate crime is something the Government have stood against until now, when they have been pushed by a Labour police and crime commissioner in Nottinghamshire, but we hope the tide may be turning.
A moment ago, the Minister referred to some statistics on hate crime, but not the most concerning ones. One was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) when he talked about violent hate crime, which is six times higher today than it was 10 years ago. Hate crimes that are reported are up by 269% in England and Wales since 2010. We have also seen the highest number of religiously motivated hate crimes ever recorded this year. What are the Government going to do about this?

Mims Davies: The hon. Lady knows that we have some of the strongest legislation to tackle everything that she has mentioned, including religious hate crime. Over the past six years, the Home Office’s places of worship protective security funding scheme has awarded  323 grants of around £8 million with regard to religious hate crime. I will be clear: I am personally committed to the best possible response to hate crime by every force.

Cost of Living: Women in the Workplace

Hannah Bardell: What recent steps the Government are taking to help support women in the workplace during the cost of living crisis.

Claire Coutinho: The Department for Work and Pensions new progression offer will help claimants on universal credit to identify opportunities in their current role or a new role. We have also increased the national living wage, reduced the universal credit taper rate and increased the work allowance to ensure that work pays.

Hannah Bardell: The current Prime Minister famously insulted millions of mums across the UK during the pandemic when he showed a total lack of understanding of the pressure they were under and the discrimination they faced in the workplace. It is probably lost on a billionaire PM, but his Tory Government have overseen the second most expensive childcare in the developed world. According to Pregnant Then Screwed, 62% of parents pay the same or more for childcare as their rent or mortgage. The cost of living crisis will only worsen that. What real actions will the Minister and the new Prime Minister take? Will she and he be in post long enough to actually do anything?

Claire Coutinho: Childcare is an important issue. Since 2010, we have doubled childcare to 30 hours for working parents, with a universal offer of 15 hours, and covering 85% of childcare costs under universal credit. We have also had much discussion in recent weeks about childcare ratios. I will ensure that the relevant Minister writes to the hon. Lady with more detail.

Harriett Baldwin: One workplace where women need support is the other place, where an eighth of the seats are reserved for men only. Will the Minister support my Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill and get that anomaly changed?

Claire Coutinho: I thank my hon. Friend for her impressive campaigning on this issue. I was privileged to be in the Chamber when she made some of her speeches about it this year. I will look into the matter and ensure that I write to her about it.

Anneliese Dodds: Last month, the new Minister for Women and Equalities told investors in New York that the Government were going for growth in a big way. She said of that economic strategy:
“We know it is bold. We know it comes with risk. But in these volatile times, every option, even the status quo is risky.”
One month on from the catastrophic mini-Budget, will the Minister explain what impact going for growth had on women’s finances?

Claire Coutinho: We have provided lots of cost of living support for families and particularly for women. We will write to the hon. Lady further about the issue.

Anneliese Dodds: I am disappointed by that brief response, because today we have found from the latest statistics that women need more than 12 times the average annual salary to buy a home. Our average real-terms wages have plummeted by almost £600 a year since 2010. The Government have simply removed the possibility of home ownership for millions of women. In her speech last month, the Minister for Women and Equalities described the UK as “Europe’s unicorn factory”. Are not her Government Britain’s chaos factory, with working women paying the price through lower wages and lost mortgages?

Claire Coutinho: I completely dispute that characterisation of the Government. We have not only taken comprehensive steps to support people financially this year, targeting support at vulnerable households and families and putting in place an energy price cap, but increased the national living wage and changed the universal credit taper rate. We have taken a number of steps to help people with their finances and we will continue to do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson, Kirsten Oswald.

Kirsten Oswald: This Tory Government have committed to introducing an employment Bill at least 20 times, but it is nowhere to be seen. Meanwhile, labour market inequalities become all the more acute, especially in the cost of living crisis. The Minister could tell us that she will fix the sick pay system, introduce the day one right to flexible working, improve parental leave and pay and strengthen protections against pregnancy and maternity discrimination, but her Government are making a choice not to do those things. That is a real contrast with the Scottish Government’s recent “Building a New Scotland” paper, which sets out how an independent Scotland would deliver fair working practices. Why do this Tory Government support inequality in the workplace?

Claire Coutinho: The changes in flexible working that we saw during the pandemic have been helpful to women. The Government have taken action in consulting on flexible working. It is a matter for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so I will ensure that the relevant Minister writes to her about that issue.

Women in British Motorsport

Greg Smith: If she will take steps with Cabinet colleagues to encourage more women into British motorsport.

Katherine Fletcher: This Government and I are absolutely committed to supporting women’s sport at every opportunity, pushing for greater participation, employment, commercial opportunities and visibility in the media. We want to continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that all aspects of women’s sport continue to flourish. I welcome the W Series, as it provides equal opportunities for women to compete competitively in motorsport. I also recognise what organisations such as Motorsport UK and the British Women Racing Drivers Club are taking forward to increase women and girls’ participation within the sport.

Greg Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As she said, the all-female W Series championship is another jewel in the crown for British motorsport, won for the third time this year by British driver Jamie Chadwick, but it has sadly had to curtail the season by three races, with the sad reality being that women’s sports such as the W Series have much lower funding available than their male counterparts. Will my hon. Friend commit to working with the W Series to help it continue to support women drivers, engineers and mechanics into motorsports?

Katherine Fletcher: My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for motorsport, and, as he knows, I am more than a little bit of a petrolhead myself. I approach motorsport with an enormous amount of enthusiasm and almost no talent, which is probably the problem. I also add my congratulations to Jamie Chadwick. I did watch the championships and she did a phenomenal drive. It is disappointing that the season was cut short, and we want women’s sports to thrive. The Government are unable to intervene directly, but the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is working with the wider support sector on the commerciality of women’s sport and how it can be promoted.

Emma Hardy: One way to encourage more women into motorsport and, indeed, into every job and every industry is to make workplaces endometriosis-friendly. One in 10 women have endometriosis, and it has a huge impact on the workplace. What encouragement can the Minister give to companies to adopt the Endometriosis UK strategy to make all workplaces endometriosis-friendly?

Katherine Fletcher: I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. Women’s health issues are coming to the fore in the workplace. Although I do not have the level of detail to commit exact policy, I will get the Department of Health and Social Care to write to her about the matter.

Disabled People: Building Adjustments

Christine Jardine: What her timescale is for the commencement and implementation of provisions in the Equality Act 2010 on reasonable adjustments to common parts of buildings for disabled people.

Kemi Badenoch: We are committed to the commencement of this provision of the Equality Act 2010. Our consultation on the detail of implementation closed on 18 August 2022, and we are analysing responses before taking further steps. We expect to introduce regulations and prepare comprehensive guidance prior to commencement in England and Wales in due course.

Christine Jardine: I welcome the Minister to her place. Access to public buildings is one of issues that my constituents most often bring to me: those who have a problem with accessibility feel that they are excluded in many ways. I know that, in England and Wales, there are almost half a million wheelchair users who are awaiting the results of the consultation for their own homes as much as for public buildings. I welcome the Minister’s statement, but can she assure us that this matter will not be put aside in the recent chaos?

Kemi Badenoch: That is something that we have committed to. Obviously, it is important to properly address the cost implications of implementation given everything that is happening, and we will do everything that we can to further this piece of work.

Higher Education: White State-Educated Children

Philip Hollobone: If she will take steps with the Secretary of State for Education to help ensure that the proportion of white state school educated students obtaining a place in higher education is raised to the same proportion as mixed heritage, black, Asian and Chinese students.

Andrea Jenkyns: Ensuring that everyone can access world-class education remains a priority. In 2021, we saw record higher education progression rates for disadvantaged white students who had free school meals. The Government are investing £3.8 billion more in high-quality education, skills and training provision, leading to good outcomes for young people and getting them the skills needed for economic growth, whichever good-quality route they choose.

Philip Hollobone: On the Government’s own figures, the percentage of state school pupils getting a higher education place by ethnicity is Chinese 72%, Asian 55%, black 49%, mixed heritage 41% and white 33%. Are the Government concerned about those widening disparities, and if so, what are they going to do to level up university entry?

Andrea Jenkyns: As a meritocrat, I believe not in positive discrimination, but in a society where people are judged on their character and ability. Access to HE should be based on a student’s attainment and their ability to succeed, rather than their background. As I said, 2021 saw a record high number of white students who receive free school meals progressing on to higher education, but since the publication of the report, “The forgotten: how White working-class pupils have been let down, and how to change it”, we have tasked the Office for Students with refreshing its entire access and participation work and with looking into that.

Cost of Living: Children with SEND

Theresa Villiers: What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Education to help ensure equality of opportunity for children with special educational needs and disabilities in the context of the cost of living crisis.

Andrea Jenkyns: For pupils with complex needs, high-needs education funding is increasing by £1 billion in the 2022-23 financial year, bringing the total funding to £9.1 billion. The Department also provides £27.3 million per annum to deliver grants to support low-income families raising disabled or seriously ill children and young people.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome that support, but constituents who are parents of disabled children often tell me that they feel it is like an obstacle race and there are many hurdles put in their way to get the support they need for   their children, both at home and at school. Can the Government make it easier to access essential special educational needs and disabilities support?

Andrea Jenkyns: My right hon. Friend raises an important question. The SEND and alternative provision Green Paper proposals aim to improve experiences and outcomes for children and young people with SEND within a fairer and more sustainable system. We are investing £301.75 million jointly with the Department of Health and Social Care to transform start for life and family support services in 75 local authorities across England.

Taiwo Owatemi: As we face the worst cost of living crisis in memory, it is becoming increasingly difficult for parents to provide important life experiences for their children. Springfield House in Birmingham is a wonderful SEND school, which many students across Coventry North West attend. For many years it has provided away nights for pupils, giving children the chance to spend time away from home, with their peers, in a safe environment. Because of Government cuts, those away nights are being axed. Will the Minister speak to her counterpart in the Department for Education to ensure that families in Coventry do not lose that much-needed service?

Andrea Jenkyns: The Government are doing some amazing work, and I point the hon. Lady’s constituents and those of MPs across the House to a fantastic website, governmentsupport.co.uk, which demonstrates the great services open to people who are having difficulties.

Topical Questions

Sarah Green: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Kemi Badenoch: I am delighted to have been appointed as Minister for Women and Equalities. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, this Government will bring
“compassion to the challenges we face”,
put people’s needs above politics and reach out to communities across the country. My priority will be to deliver our groundbreaking Inclusive Britain strategy, our cross-Government work to improve the lives of disabled people, and to break down barriers to opportunity for people from all backgrounds up and down the UK.

Sarah Green: I recently met the chair of the Chesham mosque committee, who had been told that medical examiners in our area will be available only five days a week and not at the weekend. That will cause significant problems for our Muslim and other religious communities who bury their loved ones as soon as possible following a death. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to find a way forward to ensure that the new system does not infringe the rights of religious communities?

Kemi Badenoch: I did not fully hear the question, but if the hon. Lady writes to me in more detail about what she requires, I will be able to follow up in better detail.

Michael Fabricant: Back in the 1990s, a colonel in the Royal Marines said to me that he would rather have a gay Marine alongside him who could shoot straight than a straight Marine who could not. My right hon. Friend will know there was much persecution of gay people in the armed forces. Can she update us on how the LGBT veterans independent review is getting on?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I can tell him that under Lord Etherton as chair, this important independent review has launched a call for evidence on the experiences of LGBT veterans who served between 1967 and 2000, when LGBT people were barred from openly serving in the armed forces.

Vicky Foxcroft: Why was the post of Minister for Disabled People demoted? What message do we think that that sends to disabled people, who already feel like an afterthought for this Government, and will the Government reverse that decision immediately?

Claire Coutinho: This continues to be an important ministerial post in Government. The Secretary of State will have strategic oversight, but let me leave the hon. Lady in no doubt about how important the issue is to this Government. With 1.3 million more people in work, billions more in funding for children with SEND, a new BSL Act, Down’s syndrome Act and special rules for end of life, this continues to be a very important area for this Government.

Virginia Crosbie: I am delighted that two entrepreneurs, Janet Percival from Jaspels cider and Stacey Chadfield from Emberwood Creative, will be coming to Westminster as part of the Savvitas MP HERoes initiative. Does my hon. Friend agree that our entrepreneurs are the backbone of our economy, particular in places such as Ynys Môn?

Katherine Fletcher: With family on the island running businesses, including my own—businesses based in Llangefni and Aberffraw, a wonderful part of the island—I absolutely support the work that the Savvitas MP HERoes have done to celebrate female-led enterprises across all areas of the UK. I particularly want to take this opportunity to thank Helene Martin Gee for her excellent work in this area. I am also delighted to announce that to date, 40% of start-up loans issued by this Government have gone to female entrepreneurs.

Rushanara Ali: Women’s Budget Group analysis shows  that 100,000 lone parents, mostly women, and 200,000 children will be forced into poverty if the Government raise benefits in line with average wages rather than inflation. Will Ministers confirm that they will push the Chancellor to uprate benefits in line with inflation so that women are not forced into further hardship because of the Government’s economic incompetence?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Lady will know that we do not make fiscal policy in Equalities questions. She will have to wait for the Chancellor to give a statement to get an answer to her question.

Sheryll Murray: The Government have an excellent opportunity to grant investment zones in South East Cornwall. What work are the Government doing to ensure equality of opportunity for those investors?

Katherine Fletcher: My hon. Friend is a role model to all the female entrepreneurs in her constituency. Whether through investment or expressions of interest by different areas, or making sure they take account of equality of opportunity in their conduct, the Government recognise that a diverse and inclusive business ecosystem is good for investors, entrepreneurs, businesses and my hon. Friend’s society.

Angela Eagle: It is widely acknowledged that public spending cuts impact most on women. The Chancellor has signalled that he will seek such cuts in an effort to close the £40 billion hole his predecessor recklessly blew in the public finances. Will the Equalities Minister now undertake to publish an equality impact assessment on the 17 November autumn statement, as required by the Equality Act 2010?

Kemi Badenoch: We will undertake all due assessments on fiscal statements, as we regularly do over the course of things.

Paul Maynard: The Government rightly want to see more disabled people in employment, but what more can the Minister say about encouraging in-work progression for those with a disability and, most importantly, getting more disabled representation on company boards to drive wider corporate change in business?

Claire Coutinho: My hon. Friend has always been a passionate advocate for compassionate conservatism. We are looking at the issue very carefully. We are going to accept all the recommendations of the Holmes review of public appointments and I point my hon. Friend in the direction of the DWP progression work that we are doing.

Alex Davies-Jones: Next week, we come together to recognise National Fertility Week, and yesterday I had the great opportunity to meet Fertility First, a fantastic charity that provides information to everyone who requires fertility treatment. What more can the Minister do to ensure fair and equal access to fertility treatment for everyone in the UK who needs it?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that subject, which I would be happy to meet with her to discuss in due course. As she knows, I returned to this role only a few hours ago, so I do not have a full answer for her now, but I am happy to work with her on this issue.

Angela Richardson: What is the Secretary of State’s response to the allegations made yesterday, following her appointment, by Ben Cohen of Pink News?

Kemi Badenoch: I know everyone wants to start Prime Minister’s questions quickly, but please forgive me, Mr Speaker, if my answer to this question is a tad longer than it ordinarily would be.
I am afraid that this particular individual is one who uses Twitter as a tool for defamation. He has even been sued by people in this House, such as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). As we begin a new era of equalities, I would like to say that the Equality Act is a shield, not a sword. It is there to protect people of all characteristics, whether they are young or old, male or female, black or white, gay or straight. We are running a compassionate equality strategy and we should not be distracted by people who use Twitter as a way to insult or accuse Members of Parliament.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv. I welcome the Prime Minister and call Dr Alan Whitehead to ask the first question.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Alan Whitehead: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 October.

Rishi Sunak: Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I just say to hon. Members, cheer the Prime Minister by all means, but do not damage the furniture!

Rishi Sunak: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Alan Whitehead: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his new post and as the first Prime Minister of a south Asian heritage, which I think will be a cause of great pride among many of my constituents. I also take some pride in welcoming a fellow Southampton, or Saints, supporter into No. 10.
During the last campaign that the right hon. Gentleman ran to become Prime Minister, he pledged to prohibit any development of onshore wind, which is now the cheapest form of power available to us in this country. Now that he is Prime Minister, will he change his mind?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and look forward to seeing him at St Mary’s—although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may have something to say about our love of the Saints.
When it comes to energy policy, I stick by what we said in our manifesto. The important thing is to focus on our long-term energy security. That means more renewables, more offshore wind and indeed more nuclear, and that is what this Government will deliver.

Philip Davies: I am surprised to be asking a question, and I know you are shocked too, Mr Speaker, because I know that, like many others, you thought I would already have been offered a ministerial post.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let me tell you, I didn’t hold my breath. [Laughter.]

Philip Davies: Go figure, as Joe Biden might say.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Prime Minister. He is absolutely the right person for the job and I wish him every success. He knows he has my full support. His two immediate predecessors made levelling up a key part of their agenda. Will he reaffirm his commitment to levelling up and start as he means to go on by approving the levelling-up fund bid for Bingley in my constituency?

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm remarks. I can confirm that he must be the only person who texted me in the last 24 hours to say that he did not want a job. I can give him my cast-iron commitment to levelling up, particularly in Yorkshire, which he and I share. Obviously, he will know that I cannot comment on individual bids, but by the end of the year, an announcement is expected on the successful ones, and I wish him every luck with that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us come to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer: May I welcome the Prime Minister? The first British Asian Prime Minister is a significant moment in our national story. It is a reminder that, for all the challenges we face as a country, Britain is a place where people of all races and all beliefs can fulfil their dreams. That is not true in every country, and many did not think that they would live to see the day when it would be true here. It is part of what makes us all so proud to be British.
Was the Prime Minister’s Home Secretary right to resign last week for a breach of security?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind and, indeed, generous welcome to the Dispatch Box. I look forward to Prime Minister’s Question Time with him. I know that we will have no doubt robust exchanges, but I hope that they can also be serious and grown up.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the Home Secretary. She made an error of judgment, but she recognised that, she raised the matter and she accepted her mistake. That is why I was delighted to welcome her back into a united Cabinet that brings experience and stability to the heart of Government. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Home Secretary will be focused on. She will be focused on cracking down on criminals and on defending our borders, while the Opposition remain soft on crime and in favour of unlimited immigration.

Keir Starmer: Yesterday, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”, but then, with his first act, he appointed a Home Secretary who was  sacked by his predecessor a week ago for deliberately pinging around sensitive Home Office documents from her personal account. Far from soft on crime, I ran the Crown Prosecution Service for five years. I worked with Home Secretaries to take on terrorists and serious organised crime, and I know at first hand how important it is that we have a Home Secretary whose integrity and professionalism are beyond question. Have officials raised concerns about his decision to appoint her?

Rishi Sunak: I just addressed the issue of the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about fighting crime. I would hope that, as we look forward, he would welcome the news today that there are over 15,000 new police officers on our streets. The Home Secretary will be supporting them to tackle burglaries, while the Opposition will be backing the lunatic protesting fringe that is stopping working people going about their lives.

Keir Starmer: I listened carefully; that was clearly not a “no”. We can all see what has happened here: the Prime Minister is so weak that he has done a grubby deal, trading national security because he was scared to lose another leadership election. There is a new Tory at the top but, as always with the Tories, it is party first, country second.
Yesterday, on the steps of Downing Street, he also admitted what the whole country knows: the Tories have crashed the economy and now somebody has to pay for their mess. I say it should not be working people, who have been hammered time and again by this lot, and those with the broadest shoulders must step up. Does he agree?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about party first and country second. Perhaps he can explain to us why it was that, a few years ago, he was supporting the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). My record is clear. When times are difficult in this country, I will always protect the most vulnerable; that is a value of our compassionate party. We did it in covid and we will do that again.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister says he will protect the most vulnerable. Let us test that. The Government currently allow very rich people to live here, but register abroad for tax purposes. I do not need to explain to the Prime Minister how non-dom status works; he already knows all about that. It costs the Treasury £3.2 billion every year. Why does he not put his money where his mouth is, and get rid of it?

Rishi Sunak: I have been honest: we will have to take difficult decisions to restore economic stability and confidence, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set that out in an autumn statement in just a few weeks. But what I can say is that, as we did during covid, we will always protect the most vulnerable and we will do this in a fair way. What I can say is that I am glad that the Labour party and the right hon. and learned Gentleman have finally realised that spending does need to be paid for. It is a novel concept for the party opposite. This Government are going to restore economic stability, and we will do it in a fair and compassionate way.

Keir Starmer: I know the right hon. Gentleman has been away for a few weeks, but he should have listened to what has been going on for the last two months. Anyway, I have to say I am surprised that he is still defending non-dom status. He pretends he is on the side of working people, but in private he says something very different. Over the summer, he was secretly recorded at a garden party in Tunbridge Wells, boasting to a group of Tory members that he personally moved money away from deprived areas to wealthy places instead. Rather than apologise or pretend that he meant something else, why does he not now do the right thing, and undo the changes that he made to those funding formulas?

Rishi Sunak: I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman rarely leaves north London, but if he does, he will know that there are deprived areas in our rural communities, in our coastal communities and across the south, and this Government will relentlessly support them because we are a Government who will deliver for people across the United Kingdom. He mentioned the last few weeks, and I am the first to admit that mistakes were made, and that is the reason I am standing here, but that is the difference between him and me. This summer I was talking and was being honest about the difficulties that we were facing, but when he ran for leader he promised his party he would borrow billions and billions of pounds. I told the truth for the good of the country; he told his party what it wanted to hear. Leadership is not selling fairy tales. It is confronting challenges, and that is the leadership the British people will get from this Government.

Hon. Members:: More!

Keir Starmer: I think everyone should watch the video and make up their own minds. In public, the Prime Minister
“claims he wants to level up the North, but…he boasts about trying to funnel vital investment away from deprived areas... He says one thing and does another”—
[Interruption.] Conservative Members are shouting, but those are not my words; they are the words of the former chair of the Tory party, sacked yesterday for telling the truth about the Prime Minister. Even his own side knows he is not on the side of working people. That is why the only time he ran in a competitive election, he got trounced by the former Prime Minister, who herself got beaten by a lettuce. So why does he not put it to the test, let working people have their say and call a general election?

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It will take a long time to get through the Order Paper if we carry on like this.

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about mandates, about votes and about elections, and it is bit rich coming from the person who tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in our country’s history. Our mandate is based on a manifesto that we were elected on—to remind him, an election that we won, and they lost—which says we want a stronger NHS, better schools, safer streets, control of our borders and levelling up. That is the mandate that I and this Government will deliver for the British people.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Heather Wheeler. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Order. Heather has not even asked her question and you want more? Come on, Heather.

Heather Wheeler: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend our new Prime Minister and thank our previous Prime Minister for the straightforward way in which she handled her resignation. I wish her and her family well for the future.
Will my right hon. Friend please use his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to make it clear to the General Medical Council and the British Dental Association that, as well as opening up more training spaces, they must allow new doctors and dentists to work in the UK so that the good people of South Derbyshire can get treatment on the NHS?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right. I am pleased that there are 3,500 more doctors and over 9,000 more nurses working this year than last. We are working in particular to simplify registration for dentists who have not trained here so that they can practise here. That is how we will help deliver a long-term workforce plan for the NHS and ensure that everyone can get the care that they need.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the leader of the SNP.

Ian Blackford: I congratulate the new Prime Minister on becoming the first British Asian to hold the office. The significance and symbolism of the achievement is to be warmly welcomed by everyone.
Yesterday, on the steps of Downing Street, the new Prime Minister promised to bring
“compassion to the challenges we face today.”
On his first full day in the job, let us put that to the test. A winter of uncertainty is coming, and next April will see a cliff-edge moment, with millions facing a double whammy when the energy price guarantee is cut off while households are hit by austerity 2.0 and real-terms cuts to the social security benefits that many rely on to survive. If people are to trust the new Prime Minister’s words about compassion, will he reassure people today and guarantee that benefits will rise in line with inflation in his upcoming Budget?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. What I can tell him is that my record is clear. Through the difficult times that we faced in this country during covid, I always acted in a way to protect the most vulnerable. That is because that was the right thing to do, and those are the values of our compassionate party. I absolutely reassure him and give him a commitment that we will continue to act like that in the weeks ahead.

Ian Blackford: Well, let us test that. As Chancellor, the Prime Minister slashed universal credit and presided over the worst levels—[Interruption.] For the hard of hearing on the Tory side, I remind them that universal credit was cut by £20 a week, and he presided over the worst levels of poverty in north-west Europe. I hope that he has learned from his mistakes and will guarantee that benefits will rise in line with inflation.
Speaking of mistakes, yesterday the Prime Minister appointed a Home Secretary who was forced to resign only last week for breaching the ministerial code and who boasted that she dreamed of sending vulnerable asylum seekers to Rwanda. We all know why he appointed her: a sleazy backroom deal to shore up his own position. Far from being a fresh start, it is a return to the sleaze, scandal and ghosts of Cabinets past. The Prime Minister promised to govern with integrity and humility. If he has an ounce of either, will he admit his mistake and sack the Home Secretary without delay?

Rishi Sunak: I was pleased to have a call last night with the First Minister of Scotland. It was important that I spoke to her on my first day in office, because I wanted to express my desire to work constructively with the Scottish Government so that together we can deliver for the people of Scotland. That is what I plan to do. Indeed, I hope that crime is one thing that we can collaborate on. The right hon. Gentleman will know that violent crime is rising in Scotland and police numbers are falling, whereas we are increasing police numbers here. I look forward to working with the Scottish Government on our shared challenges, because I believe in a strong United Kingdom.

Andrew Murrison: What a pleasure it was to welcome the Prime Minister to my constituency in the summer. He will know that one of the burning issues in my constituency is the proposed waste incinerator at Westbury. With the Government rightly reviewing their air quality targets, will my right hon. Friend signal his intent to continue promoting public health, net zero and the environment by placing a moratorium on any more unwanted unnecessary toxic waste burners?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is a vociferous campaigner on that issue, as I learnt over the summer. He will know that local authorities determine these issues, but I reassure him that all large incinerators in England must comply with strict emission limits and receive permits only if plants do not cause any damage to human health. Hopefully, that is reassuring for him.

Caroline Lucas: The Prime Minister’s reckless predecessor, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), took a wrecking ball to nature, prompting millions of members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts to rise up in opposition. Yesterday, he promised to fix her mistakes, as well as to uphold his party’s 2019 manifesto. If he is a man of his word, will he start by reversing the green light she gave to fracking, since it has been categorically shown not to be safe, and instead maintain the moratorium that was pledged in that very manifesto he promised to uphold?

Rishi Sunak: I have already said that I stand by the manifesto on that. What I would say is that I am proud that this Government passed the landmark Environment Act 2021, putting in more protection for the natural environment than we have ever had, with a clear plan to deliver it. I can give the hon. Lady my commitment that we will deliver on all those ambitions, and that we will deliver on what we said at COP,  because we care deeply about passing on to our children an environment that is in a better state than we found it ourselves.

Simon Baynes: I, too, welcome the Prime Minister to his place. Farmers in my constituency are delighted that after 20 years they are once more able to sell Welsh lamb to the US market. Will the Prime Minister comment on the size and prospects of that market for our world-beating Welsh lamb?

Rishi Sunak: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that fantastic achievement. I can tell him that that market is worth, I think, something like almost £40 million over the first few years—an enormous boost for our land farmers. I would just encourage the 300 million US consumers to give Yorkshire Swaledale lamb a look-in as well, but if my hon. Friend and I disagree on that, I know that we are united on the fact that we will unequivocally back British farming and British farmers.

Janet Daby: This is certainly a topsy-turvy Tory Government. A few days ago, I was going to put my question to the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), the now former Prime Minister. My inbox has been full of emails from constituents writing to me about their desperate situation. Their wages are simply not going far enough. I am also receiving emails about rents going up, energy prices going up and mortgages going up. And of course, the cost of living is already up. This week, my constituents are writing to me demanding a general election. I absolutely agree with them. Can the Prime Minister tell me and my constituents when there will be a general election?

Rishi Sunak: We have already addressed that, but as I said in the summer, inflation is indeed the enemy. It makes everyone poorer and erodes savings. That is why it will be a priority of our Government to grip and reduce inflation, and provide support to those who need it as we do so.

Bim Afolami: This autumn, I am launching my campaign to extend the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty across thousands of acres of scenic beauty, chalk streams and valuable habitats that happen to surround the wonderful town of Hitchin in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating areas protected by AONB status and support my campaign to potentially extend them in rural Hertfordshire?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend. I know this is a matter of great importance to him and his constituents. He is right to highlight the benefit that natural parks and AONBs can bring to our lives and wellbeing. I understand that Natural England is considering an extension of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, and I know my hon. Friend will be vigorously taking up his campaign with it.

Richard Burgon: I welcome the Prime Minister to his place.
A nurse would have to work for over 20,000 years in order to match the vast wealth of the Prime Minister. He knows only too well that the super-rich could easily afford to pay more in taxes, so rather than announcing a new wave of cuts and austerity, would it not be fairer for the Prime Minister to introduce wealth taxes on the very richest in our society?

Rishi Sunak: We will always support our hard-working nurses. That is why, when I was Chancellor, we reintroduced the nurses’ bursary, provided more training and introduced very strong pay increases. As I committed to previously, as we approach the difficult decisions that confront us, we will do so in a way that is fair and compassionate, because those are our values and that is what we will deliver.

Helen Whately: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to be straight with people about the challenges that we face as a country. Last week, the Care Quality Commission’s report “The state of health care and adult social care in England” showed that our health system is in gridlock. I hear the same from my constituents who are struggling to see a GP or waiting for treatment, so I urge him to make unblocking the NHS a priority for him and his Health Secretary.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend knows this subject very well from her own experience, and I thank her for the work that she did in the Health and Social Care Department. She is absolutely right about the challenge that confronts us. That is why we have put billions of pounds into busting the backlogs and the elective recovery fund and are delivering funding and staffing to do that. I look forward to working with her to deliver what we said in our manifesto: a far stronger NHS.

Alyn Smith: I add my congratulations on the Prime Minister’s appointment; we might not agree on everything, but I think we can all agree that a more diverse politics can only be to the good.
We on the Scottish National party Benches believe that Scotland’s best future is independence in Europe—[Interruption.] Keep it coming. I really would urge Government Members to show a little more respect, because it is not just the SNP—[Interruption.] I will not be shouted down. It is not just the SNP; in the last opinion poll, 72% of the people of Scotland wanted back into the European Union. If the Prime Minister is to maintain any credibility in the eyes of the people of Scotland, how long does he think he can deny Scotland’s democracy?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He talked about respect, and I gently urge him to respect the result of the referendum that we had on this topic. While we will disagree on that issue, I remain committed to working constructively in partnership with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland.

Mark Eastwood: Last week, I visited worried year 3 and year 6 pupils to hear their suggestions to tackle road safety following a number of serious road accidents outside Boothroyd Primary Academy in Dewsbury. They suggested that  the council should do more to help, that their parents should walk them to school to reduce traffic and that commuters should slow down. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and with them that we all have a part to play in ensuring road safety outside our schools?

Rishi Sunak: It is fantastic that my hon. Friend is engaging with his younger constituents at Boothroyd Academy on such an important issue, and I know that they will welcome his commitment to supporting them. I agree that there are various things that we can do. There is an updated highway code that strengthens pedestrian access; local authorities can introduce lower speed limits; and we are increasing the number of school streets, which restrict motorised traffic at busy times. I look forward to hearing from him about progress on that issue.

Stephen Kinnock: Yesterday, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that he wanted to restore trust, yet in the past 24 hours, we have seen that he is prepared shamelessly to swap red boxes for political support. There are serious consequences to all this horse-trading, so I would like him to be clear on this point: did he seek or receive any advice on security concerns about the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) before his appointment to the Government yesterday, given that the right hon. Member was sacked in 2019 for leaking sensitive information relating to our national security?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Member is talking about events that happened four years ago. He is right to raise the topic of national security, because four years ago Opposition Members were busy supporting the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who wanted to abolish the nuclear deterrent, leave NATO and scrap our armed forces. We will not take any lectures on national security.

Andrea Leadsom: I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend and wish him every success. More than three years ago, my constituent Harry Dunn was killed in a tragic road accident. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Harry Dunn’s family on the incredible campaign they have run for more than three years, with huge support from all colleagues across the House, and on finally achieving justice for Harry?

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her role and to the former Foreign Secretary and colleagues across the House for the part that they have played in bringing about that outcome. My thoughts are with the family, and I join my right hon. Friend in her sentiment that it is very welcome.

Daisy Cooper: West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in my area is still hoping to receive funds from the new hospital programme—the same programme that is supposed to deliver the Government’s so-called 40 new hospitals. There has been a lot of speculation that the new Prime Minister and his Chancellor might seek to cut infrastructure projects, so can the Prime Minister confirm that my local hospital trust, as well as all the  other local hospital trusts that are set to benefit from the new hospital programme, will in fact get that money—yes or no?

Rishi Sunak: The Chancellor will set out our plans in the autumn statement shortly, but this is the Government who put in place plans that will significantly increase capital expenditure. Even though difficult decisions need to be made, I think the country can rest assured that we will continue to invest in our future productivity and, indeed, invest in our public services like the NHS.

Wendy Morton: In Aldridge-Brownhills, we are at risk of 8,000 new homes being dumped in the constituency. Will my right hon. Friend use this Prime Minister’s question as an opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to protecting the green belt and adopting a really rigorous “brownfield first” policy?

Rishi Sunak: I can indeed give my right hon. Friend that assurance. She is absolutely right: we must protect our green belt and we are adopting a “brownfield first” strategy. I am pleased that we had a record number of new homes built in the last year, but it is important that we build those homes in the right places.

Ruth Jones: While we welcome the new Prime Minister to his place, we remember that lawbreaking was the order of the day in  Downing Street during the pandemic. We will never forget that the current Prime Minister was fined by the police for attending a birthday party hosted by his next-door neighbour. As both a witness to and a participant in that lawbreaking, if he is called to give evidence to the Privileges Committee’s investigation into the former Prime Minister, will he fully co-operate?

Rishi Sunak: Of course, and I addressed these matters earlier this year.

Michael Fabricant: Mr Speaker, you will know that I fought hard to bring back Boris. In ’97, I campaigned for Kenneth Clarke and then for Michael Portillo, so I cannot always get it right—but I do know about the west midlands. I know that the West Midlands Mayor very much welcomes the reappointment of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and looks forward to working with our new Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister what his vision is for levelling up?

Rishi Sunak: What I can say is that our desire is to ensure that wherever people live in our fantastic country, they have enormous pride in the place they call home and have every opportunity to succeed—and you know what? It is the fantastic Mayor Andy Street who is delivering that for his constituents in the west midlands.

Home Secretary: Resignation and Reappointment

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question)  To ask a question of the Home Secretary about her resignation and reappointment.

Jeremy Quin: I was disappointed, on leaving my previous Department last night, that I would no longer be seeing the right hon. Lady across the Dispatch Box, and I am so glad that she has put that right for me today. She has a good memory, and I know she will recall that last week the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith)—said, in responding to a question that she had tabled, that questions relating to
“breaches of the ministerial code”
or related issues
“are a matter for the Cabinet Office, not the Home Office”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 834.]
That is why I, not the Home Secretary, am here answering the question today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw set out the circumstances regarding the departure of the Home Secretary last week. The Home Secretary made an error of judgment. She recognised her mistake, and she took responsibility for her actions. The ministerial code allows for a range of sanctions when mistakes have been made. The Home Secretary recognised her mistake, raised the matter and stepped down. Her resignation was accepted by the then Prime Minister.
The right hon. Lady will be aware that ministerial appointments are a matter solely for the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignations of Ministers. The Prime Minister was very clear in his speech to the nation yesterday when he said:
“This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”
He has said that he will work “day in, day out” to earn the trust of the country and live up to the demands and expectations that the public rightly have of their Prime Minister. The Prime Minister expects all Ministers to uphold the values and standards set by the ministerial code, as the public would rightly expect.
As I have said, the Home Secretary made an error of judgment. She recognised her mistake, and she took accountability for her actions in stepping down. After consideration, the Prime Minister has decided, given the apology issued by the Home Secretary, to reappoint her to the Government. They are now focused, together, on working to make our streets safer and to control our borders. However, while we should learn from mistakes, we should also look to the future, and the Prime Minister has appointed a team of Ministers to lead the country through the issues that it faces.
All Ministers are bound by the ministerial code, and the Prime Minister expects his Ministers to uphold the code and hold the highest standards. As I have noted, the code allows for a range of sanctions for breaches, and on the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the code was updated in May to make that clear. On an ongoing basis, we will need—every  Minister—through our actions and in how we conduct ourselves, to demonstrate that we can continue to command this Prime Minister’s confidence as we tackle the huge challenges that are to come for the country.

Yvette Cooper: My questions are about security breaches and the protection of our national security. They are questions to the Home Secretary, who was here just five minutes ago and who then left.
Yesterday the Prime Minister promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”, yet the Government have discarded the ministerial code and reappointed someone who breached core professional standards and has now run away from basic accountability to this House. It is the same old Tory chaos, and it is letting the country down.
I have questions for the Home Secretary that the Government need to answer. The Home Secretary accepted that she had sent an official document via her personal email to someone who was not authorised to see it. Is that the only time she has done that? Has she shared other documents, or other sensitive information? The Home Secretary is responsible for national security, so has the Home Office, the Cabinet Office or the Security Service now undertaken an investigation of her security breaches to establish how many others there have been? If not, may I urge the Minister to ensure that that happens as a matter of urgency?
What security clearance has the Home Secretary been given? Does she still have access to the most sensitive documents and information, and did the Cabinet Secretary warn against her reappointment? She has been Attorney General, she has been a Minister on and off for four years, so she knows the rules about Government documents, yet she sent one to her own private email, to someone outside the Government, and also copied it by accident to someone else entirely. How is anyone supposed to believe that she is such a novice that she did not know exactly what she was doing, and if she really is that much of a novice, why on earth are the rest of us supposed to trust her with our national security? It has been reported that she sent this as an error of judgment because she was tired after going on an early-morning raid. Is the Home Office just supposed to block her phone and email if she has been up half the night because she might do stupid things while she is tired? There are suggestions that the Home Secretary while she was Attorney General was investigated for a leak of information relating to the Security Service; is that true?
The Minister is a former policing Minister; does he think that if police officers breached their code of ethics and were sacked or forced to resign, they should then be reappointed to their jobs six days later because they said sorry, or is it just one rule for the Cabinet and another for everyone else? Everyone knows this was a grubby deal to get a coronation, to put party before country, but national security is too important for this.

Jeremy Quin: The Prime Minister has made it clear that this Government will act with professionalism, integrity and accountability; that is exactly what this Government will be doing. As the right hon. Lady will be aware, I cannot comment on what the Cabinet Secretary may or may not do; that is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary. On the speculation the right hon. Lady raised—I am not going to comment on speculation either; the right hon. Lady would not expect me to do so.
At the end of the day, it is very simple: the Home Secretary made a mistake, and has acknowledged that she made a mistake, but she offered her resignation and stood down. The Prime Minister has looked again, and has decided, as is his right, that she can return to Government. I believe in redemption; I hope the right hon. Lady can as well. The Home Secretary is busy today, doing the job of the Home Secretary: keeping our borders secure and helping the police do their job—and I am sure that the right hon. Lady welcomes, as I do, the fact that we now have over 15,000 additional police officers, delivering day in, day out for the country. That is what this Government can be relied upon to do.

Bernard Jenkin: May I remind my hon. Friend that I recall that Tony Blair had to remove one of his very senior and most trusted Ministers for a breach of the ministerial code and later reappointed him to the Government? The public will respect the fact that we have a system that holds Ministers accountable for breaches of the code, but there is learning from mistakes and not just blame. I can vouch for the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has the highest integrity. I do not blame the Opposition for one minute for doing their job and probing this matter, because matters of national security are extremely important, but the Government have my confidence in that they have acted proportionately in this matter.

Jeremy Quin: I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that there were circumstances in other Administrations—in which the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) played a prominent part—of members of the Government making mistakes and then being brought back into the same Administration. If people have made a mistake, have accepted that they made a mistake and have stepped down as a result of that mistake, that enables them at a future point to be re-employed if they have a good job to do—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has an important job to do.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.

Stuart McDonald: New Prime Minister, same old Tories—a Government just like their predecessors who clearly do not think the ministerial code is worth the paper it is written on. This appointment is an absolute disgrace. So many questions simply have not been answered. How many so-called errors of judgment have there been? Do Ministers behave like this all the time, as one source close to the Home Secretary apparently said? Did the Cabinet Office raise concerns prior to this particular breach? Who first alerted officials to the breach? Who is undertaking an inquiry? Will there finally be an independent ethics adviser? Is it not shocking that there is not one just now?
However, as the Minister has acknowledged, the real question here is for the Prime Minister, because there are a million other reasons why the Home Secretary is unfit for office, from her trashing the Office of the Attorney General to her refugee-bashing policies; from  her trash talk of “Benefits Street” to her advocating our withdrawal from the European convention on human rights; and from her anti-migration, anti-growth policies to her being the last defender of tax cuts for the rich. And then there is her Rwanda “dream”. How can the Prime Minister ever talk again about integrity and compassion in politics after blatantly making an appointment in his own interest that is completely against everybody else’s interests? Actions speak louder than words.

Jeremy Quin: I reiterate that my right hon. and learned Friend made a mistake, she acknowledged that and she stepped down. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the independent adviser, and I am glad that he has done so. He will be reassured that it is the absolutely the Prime Minister’s intention to appoint an independent adviser. That is the right thing to do, and I know that it is absolutely his intention.

Desmond Swayne: Last week, the Home Secretary’s sharing of a draft parliamentary answer barely got a mention. They were all over it because this was a damaging policy row with the Prime Minister’s subordinate. She lost her Home Secretary. Why does my hon. Friend think that has changed?

Jeremy Quin: The former Prime Minister lost her Home Secretary because the Home Secretary recognised that she had made a mistake. She accepted that mistake, she offered to resign and that resignation was accepted. I do not think that means that a mistake should hang over someone for the rest of their career. There is an opportunity for redemption and the Prime Minister has decided that this would be an appropriate appointment. I know that he is working hard with the Home Secretary on the immense challenges we face.

Ben Bradshaw: It is notable how much support the Home Secretary has on the Government Benches. She did immense damage, in her previous brief tenure in the job, to our relations with India through her comments about Indian visitors overstaying their visas. The consequence is that the British people are now the only people in Europe who do not have access to e-visas to visit India. That is doing great damage to our tourism sector and jeopardising the travel plans of thousands of British families. Will the hon. Gentleman please use his good offices in the Cabinet Office to bang heads together in the Government, get this sorted out and try to repair the damage that the Home Secretary did when she was in the job last time?

Jeremy Quin: Our relationship with India is clearly important. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into detail about that. I note from the Annunciator ticker that we have an urgent question on India following this one, and I am sure he will use that opportunity to make his point.

Robert Halfon: Given the reappointment of the Home Secretary, and given what the Prime Minister has said about 50,000 more police officers, will my hon. Friend work with the Home Secretary to ensure that we get more of those police officers on the beat in Harlow, which is what our residents want?

Jeremy Quin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am not the policing Minister. Had I been the policing Minister, I am sure that I would have talked about the operational independence of the police, but I am proud to say on behalf of the Government that there are well over 15,000 new police officers—additional police officers—and that is a tremendous step forward. With those extra resources, the police can make use of them operationally as they wish, and I am sure they will have heard my right hon. Friend.

Angela Eagle: It seems to me that the ministerial code has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance in this last period of multiple Governments and the clown show that we have seen operating on the Government Benches. The Minister says that the new Prime Minister is going to appoint an independent adviser on the ministerial code. Can he give this House an assurance that when that appointment is made—we expect it to be soon—there will be a proper investigation into the behaviour of the Home Secretary in her last iteration, before she had her six days off?

Jeremy Quin: I reaffirm the point I made that the Prime Minister is keen to appoint an independent adviser, but I have to say that events in the last Administration would not be properly part of the remit of the new independent adviser. That matter was dealt with under the previous Administration. We have a new Administration and the Home Secretary has been appointed to her post.

Alistair Carmichael: The appointment by this Prime Minister of a Home Secretary is not something relating to the previous Administration. If the Minister is correct in his assertion that there is nothing improper or inappropriate about this appointment, surely it will be in the interests of this Prime Minister and his Government to have the independent adviser on the ministerial code run the rule over it once he or she is appointed.

Jeremy Quin: I do not think there is any mystery here. The fact is that a mistake was made. The Home Secretary accepted that she made a mistake, she informed the relevant parties and her resignation was accepted. I do not see the grounds under which there would be any utility in the independent adviser going over past ground.

Kevan Jones: Does the Home Secretary have full security clearance, including access to the most classified information?

Jeremy Quin: I am unable to comment on any security matters. The right hon. Gentleman knows me well, and he knows that I would not say anything publicly in this House that I did not know. I do not know the security clearance of the Home Secretary, but I know she is in the Home Office doing her job, acting as Home Secretary, and doing the right things to keep our borders secure. That includes all aspects of counter-terrorism and the full remit of her role as Home Secretary.

Sammy Wilson: I congratulate the Home Secretary on her appointment and wish her well in a very difficult job. The fact that she made a mistake, confessed to having made it, said she was sorry and then took the honourable decision to step down before being reappointed is not unique. There is not a  party in this House that has not reappointed somebody to ministerial office in such circumstances, or even worse. The real judgment we will make of the Home Secretary is whether she tackles crime on our streets, deals with the protesters who are defacing artworks and disrupting our streets, and takes on the criminal gangs that are ruthlessly exploiting the desperate immigrants who are trying to get into our country.

Jeremy Quin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristically fresh approach. Members will remember that many people appointed by their respective parties have made mistakes, have accepted those mistakes and then made a fresh start. I thank him for his openness in saying that and for reminding us that this is the case across the House. I agree that the real challenges are those facing this country in the years ahead, and the Home Secretary is hard at work getting on with it.

Diana R. Johnson: The Minister has talked a lot about accountability today, and the Home Affairs Committee has an important role in scrutinising and questioning the Home Secretary on her policies. We have not been able to do that since 2 February. When it comes to accountability and making this place work properly, we need Home Secretaries and Ministers to come before the Home Affairs Committee. Can the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary, as she now is again, will appear before the Home Affairs Committee, as will all her Ministers? This morning we heard some very disturbing evidence about the current chaos within this country’s immigration system.

Jeremy Quin: Clearly, I cannot make commitments on behalf of my fellow Ministers, but it is a long-established practice of this House that Ministers make themselves available. I have no doubt that my ministerial colleagues are very aware of that.

Andrew Slaughter: The Minister’s defence of the Home Secretary reminds me of the old saying:
“The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.”
The Prime Minister said a few moments ago that the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) had been reappointed to the Cabinet, despite his leaking confidential data. Of course, that was four years ago, and now we are talking about something that happened six days ago, so what is the minimum period of punishment or rehabilitation for breaching the ministerial code?

Jeremy Quin: I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that where a person has made a mistake, and accepted that they have made a mistake, the Prime Minister is entitled to re-evaluate the circumstances and decide whether it is appropriate for them to serve in office. That may be the case after a few days, a few months or a few years. The answer depends on the circumstances of the case, and in the Home Secretary’s case the Prime Minister has chosen to invite her back into Government.

Hywel Williams: Is there a published tariff for offending Cabinet Ministers—possibly with a period of restorative justice, remission for good behaviour and perhaps even probation options—or is it just a matter of political convenience?

Jeremy Quin: It depends on the circumstances. If someone says that they have made a mistake, it is important that their mistake is looked at in the context of the ministerial code, which has a range of sanctions. We all serve and do our utmost, and admitting a mistake, having it recognised and being sanctioned is in itself a serious matter, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree.

Meg Hillier: We all know that mistakes happen, but the Minister talks as if it were a junior member of staff who had made an inadvertent clerical error. This is a Home Secretary who released secret information through a personal email address. This suggests a pattern of behaviour, and that she thinks it is okay to snap on her phone at 4 o’clock in the morning and make this atrocious mistake. This is much more serious than the Minister is trying to paint it. I had the privilege of serving in the Home Office, and it would never have happened under previous Governments. Will the Minister not demean himself any further and honestly recognise to the House that this is of a different scale than he is trying to present it?

Jeremy Quin: I am not trying to present it in any way other than the known facts, as contained in the Home Secretary’s resignation letter, which set out that she had made a mistake and she apologised for it. The Prime Minister has clearly taken a view and the Home Secretary has returned to Government, and she has a task ahead of her.

Tahir Ali: Will the Minister confirm that under this Prime Minister—who knows how long he will be in office?—the ministerial code will be updated to say, “As long as you acknowledge and recognise your mistake, you can be reappointed immediately”?

Jeremy Quin: The ministerial code was last updated in May, so I very much doubt that a further update is likely. The ministerial code makes it clear, after a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, that it is not the case that every single breach should result in resignation or dismissal, but that appropriate measures need to be put in place, depending on the circumstances of each case.

Wendy Chamberlain: A risk assessment is carried out in other workplaces when somebody returns to work following a data breach, inadvertent or otherwise. What risk assessment is the Home Office carrying out to ensure these things do not happen again? Indeed, what assurances has the Home Secretary given that she will not engage in this behaviour again?

Jeremy Quin: The Home Secretary is clearly very aware that she has made a mistake and very aware that it can never be repeated. It is a salutary lesson not only for her but for everyone else who is privileged to serve in Government that we need to be extraordinarily careful on these matters. I think we should leave it there. The Home Secretary knows what she needs to do in future, and she knows that she has to ensure there is no  repetition. She will focus on her proper role, which is to ensure the safety of this country and the future of the police.

Clive Efford: The role of Home Secretary has major security implications for our country. Does the Minister accept that a Home Secretary who does not have full security clearance cannot do the job?

Jeremy Quin: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has got the concept of people not having full security clearance—I do not understand where that would come from. As I have said, the Home Secretary is doing the job of the Home Secretary, with all that that entails. I hope that that reassures him.

Feryal Clark: Is anyone in Government, including the members of the Cabinet, using personal email accounts to conduct Government business?

Jeremy Quin: By and large, we use Government communications to conduct Government business, but, as I understand it, there is not a total ban on this; there may be certain circumstances, when things are nugatory, where other forms of communication are used. We all live in a digital age, where we need to have rapid communications. As the hon. Lady will be aware, a range of communications are legitimately entered into by Ministers, including in relation to their constituency or to political issues, that cannot and should not be conducted on Government mechanisms.

Wayne David: Last week, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), who is in his place, said clearly to me, in response to a question, and to other Members that there had been a significant security breach by the Home Secretary and that this had led to her resignation. Yet the Home Secretary had implied that the real reason for her dismissal was a blazing row between her and the then Prime Minister. That was clearly not the case and not the reason for her departing Government. What does this say about the Home Secretary and the new Prime Minister?

Jeremy Quin: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I look, as to the rationale for my right hon. and learned Friend’s departure, at the text of her resignation letter, where she made it absolutely clear that she had made a mistake, she was sorry she had made a mistake and she felt it was appropriate in those circumstances to tender her resignation.

Wera Hobhouse: May I ask again: is a simple apology now enough for anybody who breaches the ministerial code and gets reinstated after six days without any inquiry?

Jeremy Quin: It really does depend on the circumstances, what has happened and what other methods can be used to sanction the member of the Government concerned. There may well be circumstances, as is stated in the ministerial code, where some sanction other than resignation or dismissal is appropriate.

Florence Eshalomi: I have listened to the Minister this morning outline that the Home Secretary has apologised and been reappointed. We have a situation where six police authorities are in special measures and where in some parts of the country trust and confidence in the police is at an all-time low, yet we want these same officers to go out and arrest criminals and uphold the law. Does the Minister not recognise that a Home Secretary who has broken the law—something so serious—might not command trust and confidence among those same police officers?

Jeremy Quin: I think the hon. Lady will accept that there is no suggestion here of a breach of the law. There was a mistake made by the Home Secretary, which she has accepted and apologised for. I am sorry that there is very little to add to that. She is determined, as we all are, to give the police the powers and resources they need to go after the criminals, which the hon. Lady referred to. I think she will welcome, as I do, the fact that we have now got 15,000 additional police officers.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for his responses to the questions. Rather than focusing on political point scoring, can we instead focus on political solutions? Will he give an indication of when the Government will outline fresh plans as to how they will address the issue of illegal channel crossings, which put lives in danger each day and week—our services are at breaking point—to help those migrants who seek a better future?

Jeremy Quin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the real issues that underpin this Administration and are affecting our country. I am not going to set out a timetable for him, as that is for others to do, but I absolutely recognise the pith of his comments. There are really important challenges that we need to get after and the one he mentions is right there among them, and I have absolute confidence that the Home Secretary and the immigration Minister are working on that night and day to get us the results we need.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.

UK-India Trade Deal

Nick Thomas-Symonds: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade if she will make a statement on progress made on the UK-India free trade deal.

Greg Hands: First, let me say that it is good to be back at the Department for International Trade.
India is, of course, an economic superpower, projected to be the world’s third largest economy by 2050. Improving access to this dynamic market will provide huge opportunities for UK business, building on a trading relationship worth more than £24 billion in 2021. That is why we are negotiating an ambitious free trade agreement that works for both countries. We have already closed the majority of chapters and look forward to the next round of talks shortly.
A strong free trade agreement can strengthen the economic links between the UK and India, boosting the UK economy by more than £3 billion by 2035, helping families and communities. An FTA can cut red tape, making it cheaper for UK companies to sell into India’s dynamic market, helping drive growth and support jobs across every nation and region of the UK. Greater access could help UK businesses reach more than a billion more consumers, including India’s growing middle class, which is estimated to reach a quarter of a billion by 2050, and give them a competitive edge over other countries that do not have a deal with India. An FTA with India supports the Government’s growth strategy, by taking advantage of the UK’s status as an independent trading nation championing free trade that benefits the whole of the UK. We remain clear that we are working towards the best deal for both sides and will not sign until we have a deal that is fair, reciprocal and, ultimately, in the best interests of the British people and the UK economy.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I welcome the Minister back to the Department once again, wish him well and thank him for his response. I am also grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question.
Not only is Diwali this year an important celebration, but it marks another milestone. In January, negotiations on the UK-India trade deal began, with the Government promising to conclude those talks by Diwali—this week. Under this Government, economic growth has been almost non-existent and promised progress on new free trade deals has not materialised. The Government are all talk and no delivery.
Not only would an agreement with India be potentially worth billions of pounds to the UK economy and would provide new markets for exporters, but it would offer the opportunity to advance key areas of shared interests. Labour Members have also been clear that it should also be an opportunity to raise issues such as workers’ rights, and environmental and climate standards.
However, it appears that progress on trade talks has stalled—this is yet another product of Conservative infighting. Members across this House are well aware of the comments on overstaying visas made by the Home Secretary, which have caused such offence. Does the Minister agree that the Home Secretary has completely undermined the UK Government’s negotiating position?  Will he confirm whether she will be withdrawing those comments? Has a future target date for completion of the deal been agreed? Or is this destined to be kicked into the long grass, along with the promised United States deal? Does he acknowledge that the delay in this deal, and the US deal, means there is no prospect of the Conservative party meeting its manifesto aim of 80% of trade being covered by FTA agreements by the end of this year? Does he not accept the simple truth: on trade, the Conservatives have quite simply broken their promises?

Greg Hands: I am delighted to have the opportunity to answer this urgent question and some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. [Interruption.] I will answer all of them. First, on his question about the end of the deal, we have been clear that we have concluded, as we said we would, the majority of the chapters of the deal. Sixteen chapters, across 26 policy areas, have been agreed so far. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, after each round of negotiations, a written ministerial statement, which he can study, has been tabled in this place.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about visas. Perhaps he is trying to have a second go about the Home Secretary, about whom we have just heard an urgent question. I am not sure whether members of the shadow Cabinet are properly co-ordinating their urgent questions, but the right hon. Gentleman should know that we are talking about mode 4 arrangements. They are not immigration visas. They relate to business visas, not permanent settlement. The terms of the mode 4 arrangements remain an area of active negotiation.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were all talk and no delivery on trade. That amazed me the most. He is obscuring the bigger issue for the Opposition. Let us assume that we get a good deal with India for Britain and that we get a good deal elsewhere, as we have done with Japan, Australia and New Zealand. I have been away from the Department for a year, and in that time Labour has not supported a single trade deal that the Government have undertaken. The Opposition did not support the Japan deal, they were against the Singapore deal and they split three ways on Canada. Only last month, they abstained on the Australia and New Zealand deals.
The Government are delivering on trade and the Opposition are in chaos and confusion. They have been unable to support a single trade deal to date and it sounds as though they will not support this one.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I commend my right hon. Friend for taking the urgent question. It is a pleasure to have a moment to pop down and add my voice to the important point that the deal was commenced earlier this year—I had the privilege of launching it—and that we and the Indian Prime Minister set ourselves the task of providing clarity about what a deal between our two nations could look like by Diwali. I am pleased that progress has been made.
It is important to understand the value that the deal brings not only because the Indian diaspora are such an important part of our economy—they have been incredibly important in driving what we are trying to achieve—but  because so many British businesses are excited at the prospect of some of the trade barriers coming down. I would be pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend what the key areas, particularly innovation, will bring for British businesses as the deal crystalises in the weeks ahead.

Greg Hands: I thank my right hon. Friend for her incredible service as Secretary of State for International Trade in the past year. She moved things forward in so many areas—crucially the area we are discussing. When I left the Department, an India trade deal was just a concept rather than something material. Five rounds of negotiations later, she is right that we are in a good place.
We expect the deal to do a lot on tariffs. Many of our exporters face considerable tariffs on services—professional, financial and legal. I cannot promise that we will get everything in the deal. On intellectual property, it will be easier for companies to work through innovation and so on. There is a huge number of areas of potential gain for India, including investment and life sciences. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support. Perhaps the Opposition will take it as a lesson and support a trade deal in future.

Rosie Winterton: I call SNP spokesperson Drew Hendry.

Drew Hendry: Welcoming a Minister back to his place is now a standard response, but I welcome the Minister back.
Increased trade, ties and co-operation between India and the UK are welcome, especially in Scotland. However, that should not be at the expense of human and workers’ rights. Will the Minister belatedly guarantee that issues about human rights, the environment and health and safety, along with climate and equality concerns are fully resolved before any deal is signed?
Does the Minister really believe that there is no anger and no problem about the Home Secretary’s comments in India that might cause difficulties for the deal?
Scotch whisky exports to India are already subject to 150% tariffs. New Delhi has threatened even higher tariffs on whisky and gin in retaliation for domestic steel protections. Whisky and gin producers need to know that the UK Government are doing something to reduce those tariffs drastically. What is going on? What will be done to ensure that barriers are not just replaced at Indian state level?
Jagtar Singh Johal remains in an Indian prison without trial. He has been detained since 2017. The UK has had four Prime Ministers and five Foreign Secretaries since his illegal detention. What is the Minister doing during negotiations to right that wrong?

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that list of questions. As ever, the UK’s commitment to workers’ rights in our trade deals and negotiations and in all our international talks remains undiminished. That is fundamental for this country.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned whisky tariffs. He did not support the Australia free trade deal, which means a reduction in whisky tariffs. Tariffs on Scotch whisky going to India are currently 150%. I will therefore watch closely his approach to the deal. Our  successful removal of the Airbus-Boeing tariffs has hugely benefited the Scotch whisky industry. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman fully supported that.
The hon. Gentleman raised human rights. At all times, the Foreign Office engages vigorously on the case mentioned and on other cases.
Let me end with the SNP. On trade deals, it is even worse than Labour. SNP Members have never supported a trade deal concluded by either the European Union or the UK. They did not even support the trade deal between the EU and the UK. They voted for no deal two years ago. They were against the deals with Canada, Korea and South Africa. They did not even support the trade deal between the EU and Ukraine. They also abstained on the Japan and Singapore deals. The SNP is fundamentally against trade and the interests of Scotland as a trading nation.

Gagan Mohindra: I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his place.
I am a member of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group and have had the opportunity to work closely with Scotch Whisky Association. Notwith-standing the Minister’s previous answer, will he confirm that the deal is a great opportunity for businesses up and down our great country to increase their order book and, more importantly, work with countries with shared values?

Greg Hands: Pretty much the first visit our new Secretary of State for International Trade made was to a distillery just a few weeks ago, showing our commitment to our brilliant UK food and drink exporting sectors. My hon. Friend is right to mention the exceptionally high levels of tariffs on whisky and other alcoholic products exported to India. I cannot guarantee that we will eliminate those tariffs, but if we are not at the table conducting those negotiations—the Opposition parties do not seem to think we should be there—we will not achieve anything.

Khalid Mahmood: The trade deal is being discussed against a background of India not protecting human rights and civil liberties for the Christian community, the Hindu community, the Sikh community, the Muslim community and the Kashmiri community. If we are to go ahead with a trade deal, does the Minister understand that it must be based on the Indian Government’s actions on human rights and civil liberties? Otherwise, we should not proceed with it.

Greg Hands: As I said earlier, the UK Government have an exceptionally proud record of promoting human rights around the world. In my 12 years as a Minister and a Back Bencher, I have always been impressed by the Government’s vigour in supporting global human rights.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Kashmir. He has plenty of opportunities to raise the issue at Foreign Office questions, but the Government’s position is unchanged. It is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution to the Kashmir dispute. India and Pakistan are long-standing, important friends of the  UK. We encourage both to engage in dialogue and find lasting diplomatic solutions to maintaining regional stability.

Anthony Mangnall: There is absolutely no pleasing the Opposition. They criticise us when we sign our deals too quickly and they criticise us when we take too long. The point is that we have to get this absolutely right. This Government have signed deals with Australia and with New Zealand, and negotiations are under way on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We are exploring the Gulf Co-operation Council and we are looking at India. We have concluded a digital partnership with Singapore. We have done a trade deal with Japan and we are improving the roll-over deals that we took from the European Union. That is what we are doing and what we are delivering on. Frankly, we have had this conversation before with the Opposition. Does the Minister agree that they do not recognise the very many benefits that these deals bring?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend is an experienced, dedicated and committed member of the International Trade Committee. He is right in what he says. I was in opposition myself some, gosh, 17 years ago to 12 years ago. If the Opposition are serious about going into Government they need to be clear not just about what they are against—they are against trade talks, against trade deals, and against the India trade talks—but about what they are in favour of. What are the Opposition for, Madam Deputy Speaker? The shadow Cabinet might have had a better session this afternoon deciding that rather than tabling more urgent questions.

Sarah Green: The House of Lords International Agreements Committee published its report on the Government’s negotiating objectives in July. It criticised them as being very general and high-level, and said that they provided no clue as to the Government’s negotiating priorities. Can the Minister confirm whether high animal welfare standards are a negotiating priority?

Greg Hands: What happens with a set of trade negotiations is that, when we set out the negotiating objectives and the scoping assessment, they are by necessity rather general, because the teams have not started negotiating, so they do not know what the other side will want to achieve in those talks. They have not actually started on any of those issues, so those things are by necessity rather general.
The hon. Lady asked about animal rights and she was quite right to raise that, as it is very important part of the Government’s agenda. None the less, the Government’s position remains unchanged: we have very high standards of animal welfare and we will make sure that they are not undermined by any trade agreement. In any case, we as a country set our animal welfare standards; they are not set through any trade deal.

Alex Chalk: Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise at the Opposition’s foot dragging on this given that one of the great prizes with India is on legal services? The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) is himself a lawyer. Does this deal not present a great opportunity, given that English  law governs so many contracts, for us to progress this vital industry to secure more jobs for lawyers in this country?

Greg Hands: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Legal services are a really important part of this agenda. One of the first meetings that I had in the Department was with the chair of the Bar Council, Chantal-Aimée Doerries, who told me in some detail about some of the gains that could be achieved in legal services by getting a good deal with India to make sure that our global, high-quality legal services are appreciated right the way across the world.

Ben Bradshaw: It would be easier to do trade and commerce with India if it were easy to travel there. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the British are the only nationality in Europe who are currently barred from India’s e-tourist visa system. We always used to be able to get e-visas for India, but, following the Home Secretary’s remarks, we no longer can. This is doing great damage, as we have heard on the Transport Committee, to our travel industry, to the Indian tourism industry and to the thousands of British families whose plans to travel to India are now in jeopardy. Will he use his good offices across Government to get this issue resolved in advance of any trade deal? This is real damage that is being done now.

Greg Hands: We take an ongoing interest in the ability of our citizens to travel abroad and to access other countries. However, I stress again that a trade negotiation covers what is called mode 4, which relates to the movement of people—in other words, business visas. I am confident that we can get a good deal with India when it comes to mode 4.

Jerome Mayhew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an exciting opportunity to help unlock the economic potential of the living bridge that Prime Minister Modi has recently described? As for the notional timeline of Diwali, does he also agree that getting the right deal is much more important than getting any deal?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend is right. We have a brilliant diaspora community in this country. I was delighted to celebrate Diwali—a little bit early—last week with the India Global Forum. That was a really telling example of the strength of the diaspora deal. He is also right that the content, the depth and breadth of the deal are more important than the data that it delivers. That is the case for all trade negotiations. It is a matter not of getting a quick deal, but of getting the best deal for Britain, which is exactly what we have done with Japan, exactly what we have done with Australia and exactly what we have done with New Zealand.

Paul Girvan: My colleague on the International Trade Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), mentioned the trade deals that we have already signed and the progress that has been made on others. As a Committee, we have had some concerns about when trade deals are presented to the Committee. They need to be presented in a timely  fashion so that the detail can be scrutinised. I do not wish to hold up a deal being made, but we understand that it can be important to get things done in a timely fashion. Can we have an indication as to when a deal will be put together and presented to the Committee?

Greg Hands: I will not set a deadline today for this ongoing negotiation. May I commend the hon. Gentleman for one thing—apart from his work on the Committee? I think it was the Democratic Unionist party that voted with the Government on the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. It is nice to see an Opposition party that is willing to take a constructive approach to what the Government are proposing, if it is in the interests of the UK and Northern Ireland. I commend him for that.
When it comes to interaction with MPs, I did an MPs briefing last week on the India trade deal. I mentioned that we have had written ministerial statements after each round of negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be appearing before the ITC, I believe, on 30 November at an introductory hearing, and I am sure that this will crop up there as well.

Scott Benton: I welcome the Government’s efforts to secure a free trade deal with India and the growth, jobs and investment that this will help to create. However, the Minister will be aware of our manifesto commitment to reduce net migration and the perception among many of my constituents that we are not succeeding in that aim. Will the Minister reassure the House that throughout these negotiations, in seeking to boost economic growth, he will also balance this against abiding by our manifesto commitments?

Greg Hands: The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about the importance of our manifesto commitments. I remind my hon. Friend, as I reminded the whole House, that this deal is not about immigration; it is about mode 4 business visas, which will be really important for both countries to continue to do trade, particularly services trade, such as the legal services that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) mentioned. We need to make sure that our professionals can get into the Indian market to deliver their fantastic, world-leading services.

Sarah Owen: Will the Minister please confirm that, during negotiations on this and any other trade deal, vital issues such as human rights, workers’ rights, especially women’s rights, and environmental standards have not only been discussed but that guarantees have been secured, and is he able to share what those guarantees are?

Greg Hands: The hon. Lady is right to raise those issues. I repeat what I said earlier: the UK is very proud of our standards and of the work that we do around the world on these really important questions. These are questions and issues that are raised with India and with all of our partners at all times.

Tahir Ali: The Minister will not be oblivious to the human rights record of Indian Prime Minister Modi and his Government given the atrocities being carried out against ethnic communities across India, namely the Christians and the Sikh community, and also their revocation of articles 370  and 35A in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Will the Minister categorically give us the assurance that no trade agreement will go ahead until India meets its obligations under international law and fulfils many of its outstanding UN commitments?

Greg Hands: I have already talked about Kashmir and the Government’s commitment to finding a resolution of that issue, working peacefully and with the two Governments together.
May I just return to the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), and add a little bit of detail on that important human rights case? The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Government have consistently raised our concerns about Mr Johal’s case directly with the Government of India. I believe that our then Prime Minister raised it with Prime Minister Modi earlier this year as well.

Robert Halfon: I strongly welcome the Government’s progress on this incredibly important deal. We have a thriving Indian community in Harlow, and I hope my right hon. Friend will wish them a happy Diwali. I ask him, when we sign these deals, to ensure that it is not just the big multinationals in the UK that benefit, but that he goes directly with information to smaller companies, like the many in my constituency, so they can benefit from these wonderful trade deals too?

Greg Hands: I certainly join my right hon. Friend in wishing all his Harlow constituents a happy Diwali; it is a fantastic and particularly appropriate moment for that festival to come to this country and to India. He mentions ensuring that the trade deals work not only for multinationals, but for small and medium-sized enterprises, and he is right. The UK has an SME-led economy and it would be strongly in our interest to ensure that all trade deals work for SMEs. That is why it is typically our practice to negotiate an SME chapter in our trade deals to ensure that SMEs, which do not always have the resources to wade through a 1,000-page-plus free trade agreement document, are given headers and pointers on how that deal will help to benefit them.

Jim Shannon: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. With increasing violations of FORB in India and the systematic disenfranchisement of those of Christian and Muslim faith, does the Minister agree that human rights provisions must be included in the India trade deal, and can he guarantee that no blind eye will be turned to human rights abuses for the sake of economic benefit?

Greg Hands: I think this Government have a fantastic record of promoting religious tolerance and religious diversity abroad. The current Chancellor, when he was Foreign Secretary in this Government, made that one of his key early launch pads. I might add that the British high commission in New Delhi and our deputy high commissions right across India regularly meet with religious representatives and have run projects supporting minority rights. That is a big part of what the UK presence on the ground in India is all about.

Bills Presented

General Election (Date) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ed Davey presented a Bill to amend the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 to provide for a general election to be held no later than 1 December 2022; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 174).

Former Ministers and Prime Ministers (Abolition of Payments) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rachael Maskell presented a Bill to prevent certain non-statutory payments being made by the Government to former Prime Ministers; to abolish the payment of grants to persons ceasing to hold ministerial offices; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 175).

Consumer Telephone Service Standards

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Robert Halfon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for maximum waiting times for customers who are contacting providers of utilities and certain other services by telephone; to require such companies to ensure that customers can speak to a person within that maximum waiting time; to restrict the use of automated menus on telephone services offered by such companies; to provide for financial penalties for companies that fail to meet these standards; and for connected purposes.
I would first like to say how pleased I am to have worked with the Daily Mail and Money Mail, specifically Helena Kelly and Tilly Armstrong, to support the Money Mail “Pick Up or Pay Up” campaign.
How often do we hear the dreaded phrase, “Sorry, we’re rather busy right now, but your call is important to us. Please hold the line”? How often do we have to wait 15, 20, 30 or 40-plus minutes on the phone to get through, after spending the first five minutes being asked to press 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6? How often do we wait all that time to get through and then get cut off, so that we have to start the whole horrific process all over again?
Utility companies, big multinationals with chief executives earning huge salaries, have created a Kafkaesque torture chamber of customer service. That is now happening every day across the United Kingdom, and has been for some time now, as families all over Britain try to contact their utility and service providers. Customer service standards plummeted during the pandemic, as companies grappled with the new work guidelines, but they still have not recovered and, worse still, some companies use that as an excuse, despite most workplaces having returned to normal.
According to Citizens Advice, customer service ratings for energy firms, for example, are the worst they have been since 2017, with the highest-performing suppliers scoring less than 60% for customer satisfaction. Those ratings, as the suppliers admit, are due to these egregiously long waiting times, yet seemingly no action has been taken to rectify that terrible quality of service for essential needs. In fact, consumer-facing service providers seem to be finding any way to avoid blame or accountability, to the point that NOW TV, talking to a member of my office, claimed that the death of Her late Majesty the Queen was the reason for any potential waiting times. As the saying goes, you couldn’t make it up.
Often, once we have surpassed such messages and clicked all the right buttons, we are then told by an automated voice that in fact the best route is via an online portal or text chat, despite having already been on hold for 20 minutes—and that is if we are even lucky enough to find the necessary contact details. Money Mail and the Daily Mail discovered that telecoms giants  and energy suppliers are burying their telephone numbers on obscure pages of their websites to deter customers from calling for help.
That is unacceptable, and it does not even take into account vulnerable or elderly customers who either do not have access to a computer or simply do not have the tools to use one. One 80-year-old reader told the Daily Mail that they do not have a smartphone and hence are frustrated when making calls to providers when an automated voice asks them questions that they cannot answer with their phone.
My office colleague, who I mentioned earlier, tried to purchase a NOW broadband package, still did not have their broadband connected after two months. They were told, incredibly, that their complaint about the delay had in fact caused a further delay to their service. Yet there are no consequences for increasingly anxious and frustrated consumers across Britain.
That is why we need to have financial penalties for large utility and service providers, much like the precedent that has been set in Spain. New Spanish consumer laws will force big companies and utility firms to answer calls within three minutes or face fines of up to £85,000. Consumers will also have the right to be put through to a human on the phone, rather than having to deal with an automated system.
We need a similar law in the UK to ensure, first, that no one would have to wait longer than 10 minutes on the phone—even that is pretty generous—secondly, that every customer would get through to a real human being, as opposed to an automated machine or robot, and thirdly, that companies would remove the “1, 2, 3” options, which are all about trying to get customers off the phone instead of talking to them. Should businesses fail to meet those standards, they will be fined heavily and the money paid back to the customer through rebates.
We are in a cost of living crisis. Consumers need easy and accessible customer service from their energy and utility providers. Companies such as SSE, which supplies energy, phone and broadband to UK homes, should not be allowed to leave people waiting for up to 50 minutes. Utility and service providers have a duty to their consumers, and currently, practices are not good enough with telephone services aiming to get people off the phone, rather than on it. That needs to change, which is why this Consumer Telephone Service Standards Bill is so vital to making large providers accountable. As the Daily Mail says, “Pick Up or Pay Up.”
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Robert Halfon, Margaret Ferrier, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Sir Roger Gale, Peter Aldous, Daisy Cooper, Kevin Hollinrake, Mr Louie French, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Lucy Allan, Stephen Metcalfe and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Robert Halfon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 176).

Identity and Language  (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Clause 1 - National and cultural identity

Claire Hanna: I beg to move amendment 6, page 1, line 14, leave out from “that” to second “and” in line 16 and insert
“respects the rights of others”.
This amendment would replace the principle taking account of the sensitivities of those with different national and cultural identities with a principle of respecting the rights of others.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 15, page 2, line 5, after “means” insert
“the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and”.
This amendment would include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the definition of public authority within the bill.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“‘rights of others’ means Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 and other international human rights standards.”
This amendment defines rights of others in reference to Convention rights and other international human rights standards.
Amendment 28, page 3, line 32 at end insert—
“(4A) The Office must comply with any directions (of a general or specific nature) given by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly as to the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”
This amendment is intended to ensure the bodies established by the provisions of the Bill remain accountable to guidance issued by the First and deputy First Ministers acting jointly in respect of the exercise of their functions.
Amendment 31, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(5) The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly must annually assess and report on the costs arising from the operation of the Office in line with the duties prescribed in Section 10(4).”
Amendment 21, page 3, line 33, leave out subsection 78I.
This amendment would remove the power of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression to establish the Government’s obligation to establish the Castlereagh Foundation (see Clause 8 of the Bill).
Clause stand part.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 4, line 22, leave out “have due regard to” and insert “comply with”.
This amendment would amend the duty on public authorities to one of compliance with best practice Irish language standards from one of due regard.
Amendment 27, page 5, line 18 at end insert—
“(4A) The Commissioner must comply with any directions (of a general or specific nature) given by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly as to the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”
This amendment is intended to ensure the bodies established by the provisions of the Bill remain accountable to guidance issued by the First and deputy First Ministers acting jointly in respect of the exercise of their functions.
Amendment 23, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
“(6) The Commissioner must exercise its functions under this Part in a manner that is reasonable, proportionate and practical, and which serves to promote mutual respect, good relations, understanding and reconciliation.”
This amendment reflects the stated intent under paragraphs 5.10 and 5.17 of the New Decade New Approach agreement for each Commissioner established under the Bill to exercise his or her functions in a way that is reasonable, proportionate, practical and conducive to mutual respect.
Amendment 32, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
“(6) The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly must annually assess and report on the costs arising from the role of the Commissioner in terms of—
(a) the operation of the Commissioner’s Office,
(b) the engagement and compliance of public authorities with the Commissioner, and
(c) any other costs.”
Amendment 9, page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would remove the requirement that best practice Irish language standards produced by the Irish Language Commissioner be subject to the approval of the First and deputy First Ministers.
Amendment 10, page 5, line 31, leave out “approved under subsection (2)” and insert “prepared under subsection (1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 24, page 5, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) ensure requirements placed on public authorities are reasonable, proportionate and practical.”
This amendment reflects the stated intent under paragraphs 5.10 and 5.17 of the New Decade New Approach agreement for each Commissioner established under the Bill to exercise his or her functions in a way that is reasonable, proportionate, practical and conducive to mutual respect.
Amendment 11, page 6, line 20, leave out “have due regard to” and insert “comply with”.
This amendment would amend the duty on public authorities to one of compliance with best practice Irish language standards from one of due regard.
Amendment 16, page 7, line 27, after “means” insert
“the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and”.
This amendment would include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the definition of public authority within the bill.
Amendment 12, page 7, line 29, after “(N.I.))” insert
“and any public authority under the Cabinet Office that provides public services in Northern Ireland”.
This amendment would ensure key UK wide services are included.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 29, in clause 3, page 8, line 27, leave out “arts and literature” and insert “heritage and culture”.
This amendment would revise and expand the functions of the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions provided in the Bill. The Commissioner would be responsible for developing the language, culture and heritage associated with these traditions, reflecting the body of established work and existing human rights law.
Amendment 30, page 9, line 6, leave out from “subsection (3)” to end of line 6 and insert
“so far as affecting Ulster Scots”.
This amendment restores the language used to address this commitment in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. The new wording is taken from the New Decade, New Approach agreement.
Amendment 25, page 9, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must exercise its functions under this Part in a manner that is reasonable, proportionate and practical, and which serves to promote mutual respect, good relations, understanding and reconciliation.”
This amendment reflects the stated intent under paragraphs 5.10 and 5.17 of the New Decade New Approach agreement for each Commissioner established under the Bill to exercise his or her functions in a way that is reasonable, proportionate, practical and conducive to mutual respect.
Amendment 26, page 9, line 25 at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must comply with any directions (of a general or specific nature) given by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly as to the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”
This amendment is intended to ensure the bodies established by the provisions of the Bill remain accountable to guidance issued by the First and deputy First Ministers acting jointly in respect of the exercise of their functions.
Amendment 1, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
“78SA Duty to have regard to published advice or guidance
(1) A public authority must, in providing services to the public or a section of the public in Northern Ireland, have due regard to any advice or guidance published pursuant to section 78S(2).
(2) A public authority must prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with the duty in subsection (1).
(3) A public authority—
(a) may revise and re-publish the plan if the authority considers it necessary or desirable to do so;
(b) must revise and re-publish the plan if relevant revised advice or guidance is published in accordance with section 78S(2).
(4) In preparing or revising a plan under this section, a public authority must consult the Commissioner.”
This amendment would place public authorities under a duty to have regard to advice, support and guidance issued by the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions. It would also require authorities to prepare and publish a plan demonstrating how they will adhere to the duty. This mirrors the duty to have regard provision that applies to the Irish Language Commissioner giving expression to the need for public authorities to give expression to the parity of esteem principle in relation to both Commissioners.
Amendment 33, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
“(9) The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly must annually assess and report on the costs arising from the role of the Commissioner in terms of—
(a) the operation of the Commissioner's Office
(b) the engagement and compliance of public authorities with the Commissioner
(c) any other costs.”
Amendment 2, page 9, line 34, leave out “facilitation”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 3, page 10, line 17, leave out “facilitation”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 4, page 10, line 20, leave out “facilitation”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, page 10, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
“(6) In this section “published guidance” means guidance published under section 78S(2)(b).”
This amendment would extend the grounds on which an individual can submit a complaint to the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Traditions to cover the conduct of public authorities in relation to all the guidance issued by the Ulster Scots Ulster   British Commissioner, as is already the case with respect to all the guidance issued by the Irish Language Commissioner. It would thus help restore/achieve the parity of esteem.
Amendment 17, page 10, line 29, after “means” insert
“the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and”.
This amendment would include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the definition of public authority within the bill.
Clause 3 stand part.
Clause 4 stand part.
Clause 5 stand part.
Amendment 13, in clause 6, page 12, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) In the case of the absence of compliance with regard to identity and language functions by a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department, the Secretary of State must—
(a) act to appoint an Irish Language Commissioner within 30 days, in the case of the First Minister and deputy First Minister not acting jointly to appoint an Irish Language Commissioner as laid out in section 78J of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (as inserted by section 2 of this Act) within 30 days of the legislation coming into force or a vacancy arising;
(b) act within 30 days to approve the best practice standards submitted by the Irish Language Commissioner with or without modifications, in the case of the First Minister and deputy First Minister not approving best practice standards submitted under section 78M of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (as inserted by section 2 of this Act) within 30 days.”
These step-in powers for the Secretary of State include a timescale whereby a decision by him or her must be taken. With this amendment the Secretary of State must act within 30 days of progress being restrained.
Amendment 14, page 12, line 16, at end insert—
“(c) a function conferred by or under section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
This amendment seeks to permit the Secretary of State to intervene, reflecting the commitment given in New Decade New Approach. The Irish language strategy is not included under these functions and this amendment would amend the legislation to include the Irish language strategy as a function.
Clause 6 stand part.
Clause 7 stand part.
Amendment 22, in clause 8, page 13, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Government to establish the Castlereagh Foundation.
Amendment 18, page 13, line 21, at end insert–
“(2A) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the establishment or funding of any body or organisation under subsection (1).
(2B) A report published under subsection (2A) must include details of the relevant body or organisation’s—
(a) membership or proposed membership;
(b) funding structure or proposed funding structure;
(c) functions, responsibilities and objectives;
(d) compliance with Article 1(v) of the British-Irish Agreement 1998; and,
(e) compliance with the National and Cultural Identity Principles.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the structure and functioning of the proposed Castlereagh Foundation.
Clause 8 stand part.
Amendment 20, in clause 9, page 14, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Part 1 comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint subject to subsection (3).”
This amendment would remove the concurrent powers and powers of direction granted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under Part 2 from the Bill.
Amendment 34, page 14, line 31, at end insert—
“(2A) Before Part 1 comes into force the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report assessing—
(a) the annual costs to the public purse of–
(i) the establishment and operation of each of the three bodies constituted under this Bill, and
(ii) the relevant public authorities engaging and having regard to the three offices, and
(b) how this spending allocation gives effect to the principle of the parity of esteem between the unionist and nationalist communities.”
The explanatory notes for this Bill only provide costings for the running costs of the three new offices. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to assess the costs to the public purse both from running the three new offices and for meeting the cost of public authorities engaging with and having regard to the three new offices.
Amendment 35, page 14, line 33, at end insert—
“(4) After the Bill comes into effect, the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly must—
(a) publish an annual report comparing the total public monies spent in relation to—
(i) the Irish Language Commissioner under Section 2(6), and
(ii) the Ulster Scots Ulster British Commissioner under Section 3(5), and
(b) assess the costs associated with running the Office of Identity and Expression,
to ensure that the parity of esteem is respected in the spending between the unionist and nationalist communities.”
This amendment requires Ministers to annually compare the total public monies spent in relation to the Irish Language Commissioner and the Ulster Scots Ulster British Commissioner to ensure that parity of esteem is respected in the spending between the unionist and nationalist communities. It also requires them to assess the costs associated with the Office of Identity and Expression on the same basis.
Clause 9 stand part.
Clause 10 stand part.
Clause 11 stand part.
Government amendment 19.
Clause 12 stand part.
New clause 1—Duty in relation to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages—
“A public authority must, in carrying out functions relating to Northern Ireland, act compatibly with its obligations under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.”
This new clause would oblige public authorities to comply with obligations accepted by the United Kingdom under the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Claire Hanna: Go raibh maith agat, Dame Eleanor. I rise to discuss amendment 6, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for North Down (Stephen Farry), as well as to speak about some of the other amendments  we have tabled, including amendment 13, which we might seek your permission to press to a vote later. For the convenience of the Committee, I will comment on amendments tabled by others as well.
Amendments 6 and 7 to clause 1 clarify the issues with the clause and seek to move provisions on to a more rights-based footing. The amendments bring the Bill into line with international human rights standards and the drafted legislation worked on between the parties prior to New Decade, New Approach. The phrase in the Bill as drafted, without amendment, refers to the “sensitivities” of others, but unfortunately in Northern Ireland we know that there are people of various political hues who might be hostile to the cultural expression of others. The amendments seek to place these measures on a rights-based footing, because in the same way as there is no right not to be offended, there is not really a right for anyone not to have other people speak around them a language that they do not support.
Elsewhere in clause 1, the Social Democratic and Labour party also supports the Opposition’s amendment 15, which seeks to include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the definition of a public body. We have concerns about amendments 28 and 31, which locate further powers and duties with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which I shall expand on later. We also do not support amendment 21, which would seek to remove the proposed Castlereagh Foundation from the architecture that we are creating through the Bill and would be a further departure from New Decade, New Approach.
On clause 2, I want to speak in favour of amendments 8 to 12, which we do not seek to push to a Division. Amendments 8 and 11 focus on amending the duty on public authorities to one of compliance with best practice standards rather than just due regard. We think that the duty should flow from the St Andrew’s agreement on language rights based on the experience of Wales, and the amendments would ensure that that was the case.
Amendments 9 and 10 would remove the requirement that best practice language standards should be approved by the First Ministers. That eliminates the potential for yet more frustration of the issue, which, as Members will be aware, has been problematic for decades. It would also prevent the further embedding of issues to do with language and culture within the fairly binary Unionist-nationalist atmosphere around the Executive Office. Amendment 12 would widen the legislation to include more UK-wide authorities as per the Welsh experience that flowed from the St Andrew’s commitment.
Elsewhere in clause 2, a few amendments have been tabled by the Democratic Unionist party. We appreciate the thrust of amendments 23, 24 and 25, and the direction and the intent in some of the language, but we have concerns about tabulating them into law. We also have concerns about amendments 27 and 32 for the aforementioned reasons of Executive Office dysfunction.
We have no amendments tabled to clause 3, but will note the various points made by others in Committee. That underlines again why we would have been better off hammering the issue out and drawing it out in the Assembly, where we could hear from witnesses from human rights bodies and others who could clarify the  possible implications of some of the amendments. We think that it is appropriate that the final legislation reflects the various stages of development of the different languages.
I believe that there are no amendments tabled to clauses 4 and 5. On clause 6, we will press amendment 13 to a vote. It would provide for new step-in powers for the Secretary of State to unlock the provisions in the Bill in the event of there being either no First Ministers or further delay and denial. That would help to build trust, to get this done and to prevent the issue from being a bone of contention and a frustration. The 30-day period that we specify would commence only after an initial window to allow the First Ministers to agree a process. It would protect the primacy of devolution and the First Ministers’ ability in the first instance to deliver the powers granted to them. It would not go over their heads unless progress were locked out, as it has been in the past. Amendment 14 to clause 6 is in a similar vein and would provide step-in powers for the Secretary of State to do anything that a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland Department could do in the exercise of a language and identity function.
There are no amendments tabled to clause 7. We have tabled no amendments to clause 8, but, again, we will observe some of the points that others will make. Additionally, we have tabled new clause 1, which would oblige public authorities to comply with obligations accepted by the United Kingdom under the Council of Europe’s charter for regional or minority languages. It relates to a recommendation in the NIHRC’s Bill of Rights advice to the Secretary of State in 2008.

Jim Shannon: It is always a pleasure to speak, but it is even more of a pleasure to be called to speak second in this debate. I am very honoured. I will speak to amendments 1 to 5. Members of my party have tabled some 23 amendments, which show the quantity of our concerns and the quantity of ways in which the Bill does not set the scene for those of my Unionist community. I have been contacted by many of my constituents in Strangford, and indeed by some people who do not have an MP who will take their place to do their job. As a member of the public said to me, “Why would Sinn Féin need to take their seats at Westminster when Members of this House and”—I say this with respect—“on certain occasions, members of the Government are intent on doing their work for them?” What an accusation to those on the Government Front Bench, whose party we have supported on many occasions, and to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, with whom I have friendship but who has not grasped this issue for us, despite what we said the last time around.

Colum Eastwood: I congratulate the hon. Member on being called to speak early in the debate. Does he accept that it is not just Sinn Féin that cares about the Irish language or the protection of minority languages and cultures?

Jim Shannon: I accept that. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) explained very well where her party stands on this issue. I will speak from my Ulster Scots point of view and from the Unionism that I represent in this House and in the constituency of Strangford.
The fact is that a large proportion of people in Northern Ireland feel that this Bill is nothing more than a sop to Sinn Féin, and that the losers will not be simply the Unionist population, whose culture and heritage will be in second place legislatively; people will lose financially, because the money for this could be used to pay for an additional midwife on shift to assist the safe delivery of babies, an extra surgeon to perform a cataract operation, or an extra classroom assistant to help a special needs child to achieve their potential.

Sammy Wilson: The Bill does not reflect the terms agreed in New Decade, New Approach—in fact, it goes well beyond them. The Sinn Féin hand in the Northern Ireland Office is all over this. The NIO’s default position is always to give Sinn Féin what Sinn Féin cannot get in negotiations. It is unfortunate that when Ministers are appointed to the NIO, they seem to accept that default position, so that the NIO seems to be an extension of the Department of Foreign Affairs in the Republic of Ireland and a voice for Sinn Féin.

Jim Shannon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I believe that he is absolutely right.

Steven Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Shannon: In a wee second. First let me say that we have real concerns about what is proposed in the Bill. We have had discussions with the Minister of State and the Conservative party, so they can understand our angst and—perhaps—anger. If the Minister has not understood that, by the end of this debate he will clearly understand it.

Steven Baker: I have clearly understood. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) are two of my best friends in this place, and to hear them speak as they just have is personally very painful. I want to reassure them and say on a slightly lighter note that while they accuse us of being a wing of Sinn Féin, Sinn Féin is perfectly content to tell me that we pander too much to the Democratic Unionist party—

Colum Eastwood: You do.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that, at the moment, what the Government are doing is about right, given that we appear to be offending all quarters. When I make my speech, I will answer the hon. Member for Strangford as best I can.

Jim Shannon: Thank you.

Claire Hanna: Just to clarify, I do not know how much the hon. Gentlemen are in touch with the voting public, but believe me, between the two of them, they are driving voters into the arms of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin Members hardly need to turn up for the debate with all the platforming the hon. Gentlemen are giving them.

Jim Shannon: I am happy to platform Unionism and more than happy to voice the Unionist opinion, which comes clearly to me from my constituents in Strangford. At the end of the day, we will hear the Minister respond and probably be disappointed—we know what he is  likely to say. However, I hope he will listen intently to what we have to say. We are looking for parity under the Bill, and we do not see that.

Gavin Robinson: My hon. Friend will set out our aspirations in the amendments we have tabled. Those amendments are about getting back to what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. On Second Reading, we heard time and again that the Bill was all about honourably introducing what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. It is not. The three model Bills published at that time differ fundamentally from what we have before us this afternoon. Despite the bonhomie and friendly assurances, the Government have an opportunity to embrace amendments that take us back to what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Government to embrace what was agreed and to not set aside what was agreed for the sake of political expediency and at the behest of others?

Jim Shannon: I will make that point very clearly. My hon. Friend is right. That is our plea to the Minister. He and I entered this House together in 2010. We were good friends from the very beginning and we still are, but in the spirit of our good friendship, I suggest that we need some understanding of our point of view, and we are not convinced we have that at the moment.

Simon Hoare: May I say very politely to the hon. Gentleman that I have had conversations with the Minister of State about the Bill. My hon. Friend understands the Bill and the issues completely; I share his understanding and think the Bill is fine as it is. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me—my hunch is that he will not—that often when people say that somebody does not understand, what they mean is that that person does not agree with them, and until that person does so, they will continue to allege that that person does not understand?

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman has a point of view that it will not surprise him and many others to hear I disagree with. When we say the Minister may not understand, we mean that we feel that he has not grasped as we have what the Bill will mean to those of an Ulster Scots persuasion, like me. It is not that we are anti-Irish language. What we want is parity and equality in the Bill. Perhaps the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will appreciate that.
The drive to put a political weaponised language Bill before other needs during this cost of living crisis sends the message to people throughout Ards and North Down—96% of whom have no knowledge of Irish and 12% of whom have Ulster Scots knowledge—that they do not have parity and their needs are not paramount. That is the issue. The Government must carefully consider the messaging, because at the moment it is simply wrong, and if it is wrong, it has to be righted. The Bill is set to go forward regardless of timing, so I will speak to the changes to the Bill that are imperative if it is even to come close to being accepted by the people of the Province.
We all agree that the two commissioners—the Ulster British commissioner and the Irish language commissioner—should be of equal value to their respective communities, and that to secure that goal they should have different functions. Not only have we agreed this; we have insisted  on it. In arguing that different commissioners should have different functions, with the objective of their being of equal value to their communities, it is plainly essential that the enforcement powers of both in respect of their different functions should be equally robust in engaging that which they also have in common—exactly the same group of public bodies. There are around 70 of them and the idea is that they follow guidance issued by the two commissioners with respect to their different briefs.
There is a serious problem though. The Bill before us today places a statutory duty on those 70 public bodies to have regard to what the Irish Language commissioner says, but places no such obligation on them to have regard to what the Ulster Scots commissioner says. What is the point of a commissioner whom public bodies can ignore? That is the straight question I put to the Minister of State. In the context of a cost of living crisis, can the Government justify spending money on creating an Ulster Scots commissioner whose representations public bodies can ignore? Why would anyone want the job of a commissioner whom all the public bodies could ignore if they so wish?
What conclusions might people from that community draw about how the Government view the importance, or lack thereof, of the community that the Ulster British commissioner is supposed to serve? They would know that they were less than second class, whereas if they had been denied a commissioner altogether, at least everyone would know that they were being discriminated against, and they would not have to suffer the indignity of being made to look as if they were being treated as equal to the other community, when everybody knows that they are not. Today, the Ulster Scots community is not.
In the other place, the Government sought to defend their discriminatory treatment on two bases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned, they said that the discrimination was in NDNA, but if we look at NDNA, it makes no reference to the provision of a statutory duty to have regard to the Irish language commissioner or the Ulster Scots commissioner. As a matter of common sense, that is implied in the sense that it would be a waste to spend money on creating a commissioner who everyone can ignore—wow. We do not object to the provision of a duty to have regard to the Irish language commissioner, but the lack of provision of a parallel duty to have regard to the Ulster Scots commissioner is completely indefensible on the basis of any sensible reading of NDNA, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East referred to in his intervention.
Secondly, the Government said that the lack of duty to have regard was to compensate for the fact that the Ulster British commissioner has a much wider brief than the Irish language commissioner, which does not even begin to stand up to scrutiny. The Ulster British commissioner is allowed to engage with arts and literature as well as language because there is no desire on the part of the Ulster British community for bilingual Ulster-Scots services, whereas there is a desire on the part of the nationalist community for bilingual services. In that context, it was plain that had the Ulster British community been provided with an Ulster Scots language  commissioner, the Unionist community would not have been afforded something of equal value to the nationalist community.
There is real interest within the Ulster Scots community, however, in the Ulster Scots heritage, music, culture, poetry, storytelling and all those things. Ulster Scots is in great abundance in my constituency of Strangford and I would say—my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) might dispute this—it is the core constituency in Northern Ireland where it thrives and does well. As I said on Second Reading, the street names of Ards Borough Council, as it was then, such as Ballywalter for Whitkirk, Ballyhalbert for Talbotstoun, Greyabbey for Greba, and Portavogie for St Andrews, are an example of the Ulster Scots ingredients that we have in the constituency. We also had a sign saying “Fair fae ye to the Ards”, which means “Welcome to the Ards” in Ulster Scots, which was an indication of the depth of usage of the language in my constituency.
In that context, it was determined that while the nationalist community should be afforded an Irish language commissioner, in order for the Unionist community to be given something of equal value, it should be afforded an Ulster Scots commissioner whose remit extended beyond language to art and literature. There are three major difficulties with the notion that it is fair to argue that public bodies should not be subject to a statutory duty to have regard to what the Ulster Scots commissioner says.
First, the notion that Unionism would be favoured if the public bodies were required to have regard to the Ulster Scots commissioner would make sense only if the Unionist community wanted its commissioner to promote bilingualism across the 70-plus public bodies and had a remit covering arts and literature. In that instance, Unionism would have been provided with a commissioner that was of more value to it than the commissioner afforded to nationalism. In that situation, one might have talked about taking something such as enforcement away from the Ulster Scots commissioner to balance things out, but where we are beggars belief.
In reality, things have already been balanced out by the fact that the language function of the Ulster Scots commissioner will be much more limited than the language function of the Irish language commissioner. Having compensated for that extension once, the Government cannot compensate for it again without giving Unionism a commissioner that is of less value to it than the Irish language commissioner is to nationalism.
Secondly, as a matter of practice, far from having a much wider brief than the Irish language commissioner, the Ulster British commissioner has a much narrower brief. To understand why that is the case, one must understand the following. We have 70 public bodies, all of which operate with a language—English. The Irish language commissioner wants them all to operate bilingually. In that case, the nationalist community has a commissioner to engage extensively with all those public bodies. The Ulster Scots commissioner will make far more limited language demands on those same 70 public bodies, because there is no desire for bilingualism.
Thirdly, to compensate for that unequal arrangement, the remit of the Ulster Scots commissioner is extended to apparently make it wider, so that it embraces arts and literature, but while all 70 public bodies operate using a language and could be asked to use another language,  only a few of them have functions that might be deemed to have anything to do with arts and literature. Unionists have asked for the Ulster British commissioner to cover heritage and culture, on which point we are supported by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which would have made the remit broader and helped to secure a better balance. That request was rejected, but we have now tabled amendment 29.
The truth is that if we are trying to develop two commissioners who will be of equal value to their different communities by making similarly extensive demands on public bodies and their budgets, it is hard to conceive of a less balanced package. Even if public bodies were subject to the same statutory duty to have regard to the Ulster Scots commissioner as the Irish language commissioner, it is plain that the Ulster British commissioner will make far fewer demands for its community and be of far less value for its community than the Irish language commissioner. For the Government to seek to make things even more unequal by not even requiring public authorities to have regard to the Ulster Scots commissioner beggars belief. I do not know what the Minister will say, but it will have to be something pretty good.
Today is the last chance to put that right, which is why the DUP has tabled amendment 1 to place on public bodies the same duty to have regard as already engages them with respect to the Irish language commissioner. That will not result in overall equal treatment for Unionists, because the remit of the commissioner will still be too narrow due to the limited relevance of art and literature to most public bodies, but it will make things better. It is imperative that the amendment passes today. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to review his notes and his recommendations in a way that can address the issue.
In response to my arguments for amendment 1, the Government could point out that Unionists can secure a measure of enforcement, notwithstanding the failure to place on public bodies the duty to have regard to the Ulster Scots commissioner to which they are subject with respect to the Irish language commissioner, courtesy of the right to complain—but we need a lot more than the right to complain. Rather than helping the Government’s position, that move would serve only to weaken it by highlighting yet further effective discrimination against Unionists.
There are two major problems with the notion that the right to complain offsets the lack of duty to have regard—it does not. First, the duty to have regard to the Irish language commissioner, which is placed on public bodies, applies across the full spectrum of the function of the Irish language commissioner, but the right of Unionists to complain only relates to the use of the Ulster Scots language, which, as we have clearly said, is not the priority for Unionism. Through the duty to have regard, therefore, nationalism has been given something far more valuable than the right to complain afforded to Unionism. I am reminded of the quote from “Animal Farm”:
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
We want to be equal with everyone else, and that is what we are choosing.
Secondly, the right to complain also exists for nationalists through the Irish language commissioner, so it is not a unique provision for Unionists. Again, it applies across  the full spectrum of the function of the Irish language commissioner, which gives nationalists a set of more meaningful rights than those accorded to Unionists. That is the key issue of our stance and where we are coming from.
Amendments 2 to 5 remedy that situation by providing people with a right to complain about failings by public bodies across the full spectrum of the function of the Ulster Scots commissioner that has been deemed to provide a service of equal value to Unionism as that accorded to nationalism through the Irish language commissioner. Again, however, because the function of the Ulster Scots commissioner cannot actually provide a service of equal value to Unionism as the Irish language commissioner can to nationalism because of the limited relevance of art and literature to most public bodies, these amendments will not completely solve the difficulty, but they will make the current arrangements significantly less offensive.
If the Bill becomes law in its current state, the Ulster-Scots Agency has questioned the extent to which the Ulster British commissioner can be of any substantive value. It seems likely that the legislation will give rise to a situation in which we have an Irish language commissioner who makes extensive demands of public authorities, which involve those public authorities spending significant amounts of public moneys to the benefit of nationalism and which generate extensive public engagement through the right to complain through the commissioner. On the other hand, we have the Ulster Scots commissioner, who can make very limited demands of public authorities, which they will be able to ignore, and who can generate no public engagement through the complaints procedure because Unionists are not interested in complaining about the absence of the use of Ulster Scots in public services. Again, I ask the Minister whether he will at the very least monitor the impact of the legislation, and when it becomes apparent that this is the effect of the legislation, take robust action to fix the problem.
There are many more amendments I would like to speak to, but there is not time. I conclude with great sadness and I ask the Minister this question with all solemnity, dignity and honesty: what has Northern Ireland Unionism done to so upset the Government that they see fit to treat us this way? First, we had a Prime Minister—the Prime Minister has changed—who came to Northern Ireland, promised that there would be no border down the Irish sea, and then went home and imposed a border down the Irish sea. Now we have the way the Government have treated us in relation to the Ulster Scots commissioner.
It is hard not to draw a very painful conclusion, and I say with great sadness in my heart that I look upon the Minister as a friend, but the legislation today is here to punish us. Even at this late stage, I ask the Government to think again.

Eleanor Laing: I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

Simon Hoare: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I was not intending to speak in this debate, but I suddenly realised that I probably owed the Committee a small apology in that I was not able to take part in the Second Reading debate, due to having been called home for a reason.
If I may, I want to put on record my support for the Bill. It has been a long time coming, and I think it is laudable for His Majesty’s Government to bring it forward. Too often, when we have seen agreements that are part of moving the dial on Northern Ireland or of resurrecting the Executive, the agreement is seen as an event that does the trick and then gets forgotten. This was a very key part of New Decade, New Approach and the Government are right to bring it forward.
It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Strangford that I do not see the Bill as being an opposed to Unionists, glass half-full, Conservative Government attack, which is how he sees it. If we start from the premise that no Bill is ever perfect, any fair reading of the Bill shows that it effectively addresses the two sides of the same coin in a way that respects two different traditions and the people who have advocated for those traditions. It is an issue that has been too long neglected, and it is wise and right that the Government should do this.
I make the point, which I would certainly have made in my Second Reading speech, that I am a Welshman who attended a Welsh high school, but at a time when South Glamorgan County Council said that Welsh was a dying language, so we learned it for a year and then it was dropped. When I return to Wales, which has seen a renaissance of the Welsh language, I wish I could take part in those conversations, and I feel as though a piece of the cultural jigsaw is missing.
If we are Unionists, we do not have to be uniform. Part of the great strength of our United Kingdom comes from the cultures, the language, the music, the literature, the poetry and all those things that make us such a strong and attractive geopolitical force in the world. One does not have to be uniform to be a Unionist, and we should be celebrating those differences and those traditions.

Robin Walker: rose—

Simon Hoare: Of course, I give way not only to a distinguished former Minister, but to the newest member of my Committee.

Robin Walker: I thank the Chair of the Committee, and it is a pleasure to intervene on him. Further to his point, would he agree that Unionists and, indeed, Northern Ireland Presbyterians played an important part in the resurrection of the Irish language in the late 19th century and own some of that culture themselves? It was Unionists who insisted, in the NDNA negotiations, on having the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition commissioner as part of this, and we would of course like DUP politicians to be able to have a more direct say in it. They must do that by getting back into the Executive and back into the Assembly, and they could have delivered this law themselves.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend, as always, is absolutely right. Just as the Welsh language is not owned by Plaid Cymru or Welsh nationalists, so neither is the Irish language so owned. I think it is testimony to the commitment to the history and traditions of our country that Sir Wyn Roberts—the noble Lord Roberts of Conwy, as he then was—put the Welsh Language Act 1993 on the statute book under John Major’s premiership.
I think the Bill that my hon. Friend the Minister is piloting through the House today follows in the tradition of being so confident in our Unionist skins, and in the underlying strength of the Union, that we see it neither as a sign of weakness nor as a ceding of territory when we champion and provide such platforms for Ulster Scots and for Irish. I would also love to see the Scottish Government do far more in this regard for Scotland—you are looking at me in a very frowny way, Dame Eleanor—and I would like to see additional support for Cornish, which is the only language on mainland GB that has had no real intervention and support.

Sammy Wilson: Anyone listening to the speech that the hon. Gentleman has made so far might get the impression that somehow the Irish language is given no status in Northern Ireland at present, that this Bill is requires for that, and that Unionists have been reluctant for that to happen. Does he not accept that hundreds of millions of pounds are already spent on Irish language promotion in Northern Ireland—from Irish language broadcasting to Irish language education, Irish language street names and Irish language festivals? We already spend money on a whole range of things, so it is not right to give the impression that there is not promotion or facilities for people to speak Irish, learn Irish and appreciate their Irish culture.

Simon Hoare: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman enjoys all of those things that he has set out to the Committee that relate to the Irish language, but that was not the point I was making. It was about official recognition, status and the underpinning via the commissioners in this Bill, which I hope will not be amended—I say that to the supporters of all the different amendments. I hope the Bill goes through unamended and that they will not press those amendments to a vote. This is about the status and the role of the commissioners, which I think will help with the delivery of New Decade, New Approach. This Bill is important to a lot of people, and I support it.
Let me close by reiterating this point. The hon. Member for Strangford can make many criticisms of the Bill—this is a democratic House, and we are entitled to support and criticise as much as we like. However, the Committee will know that my hon. Friend the Minister and I are not necessarily known for being on the same page of the same hymn book at the same time—very often, we are singing entirely different hymns in entirely different keys, but at precisely the same time during the same service—so when unanimity breaks out between us, I am not quite suggesting that the bunting should be put out, but I think it is something we should note.
Frankly, I think it is unfair of the hon. Member for Strangford to say that my hon. Friend the Minister does not understand the Bill. If there is one thing we know about my hon. Friend, it is that he reads every document put before him, as a Minister, as chairman of the European Research Group and as a Back Bencher. He is annoyingly knowledgeable about the minutiae—my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who served with him in the Department for Exiting the European Union, nods in a way that shows the scars are just about healing. To suggest that the Minister does not understand the legislation he is bringing to the Committee is a totally unfair attack on him.

Jim Shannon: This of course is not about friendships; it is about actions and about what is right. What is not right in this Bill is that the Ulster Scots commissioner has not been given parity with the Irish language commissioner, and the issue for us is to have parity. If it is going to be right, let us have it right in every sense of the word. This is not about friendships, or about being bosom buddies again; it is about getting it right.

Simon Hoare: The hon. Gentleman misconstrues what I am saying. My support for the Bill is not based upon the fact that the Minister is an hon. Friend in party political terms. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Minister does not understand the Bill and that the Government, whom I am proud to support, seem hellbent on appeasing people who are in a politically different place from him. He suggested that the Minister was kowtowing, if one will, to a Sinn Féin agenda.
I have suffered some unfair and untrue brickbats from hon. Members over the time I have chaired the Committee. I say politely to the hon. Member for Strangford that it has to stop. This is New Decade, New Approach, and the Government are trying to move things forward with fairness and equity, respect and support for all of those whom the Government recognise as citizens of the United Kingdom. That is the central mission. That is what underpins New Decade, New Approach. That is the bedrock of the Bill. It has my wholehearted support.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Thank you, Dame Eleanor, for calling me in the debate. Its focus has already tended to drift towards the issue of language, but the Bill is about identity and language. I want to comment specifically on identity and the amendments that affect that.
Identity is a pithy matter. It is not so easily defined, and it affects us all in very different ways. Dame Eleanor, you have been to my constituency on many occasions. You will know that if you go to the townlands of Dunseverick or Ballintoy and raise your eyes to the horizon across the great Dalriada bay, first and foremost you will see Scotland—the outlan of your home nation. At the same time, standing in that part of my constituency, Belfast, the capital city of Northern Ireland, is almost 70 miles away. The capital city of the Republic of Ireland, Dublin, is about 160 miles away—some might say that it is 160 light years away. The identity of that part of my constituency, which infuses itself in the people of my constituency and those of that northern corner of Ulster, is a strange mix of Ulster and Scot; an identity that is unique.
If we are to deal with the protection of an identity, we need to get back to what the law states. The law in Northern Ireland is about protecting heritage, culture and equality; it is not a single-minded thing just about language.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: rose—

Ian Paisley Jnr: Of course, I give way to another Ulster Scot.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: It is not just something that is contemporary. The view from the Glens of Antrim is beautiful, but the kingdom of Dalriada used to cover much of Scotland; it was both Ulster and Scotland. Historically, that culture and identity is embedded  in the DNA of the people. What I find most offensive is that the Bill does not reflect the historic significance of my Ulster Scots, Ulster British heritage and culture, and it does not afford it adequate protection.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which he makes powerfully.
When we deal with identity in this framework, we are dealing with equality law, we are dealing with equal rights, and we are dealing with something that has an impact across the whole of this kingdom, because it is about a person’s individual and community perspective. That enforces who and what we are. It is nebulous; it is shadows; but it is who and what we are, in terms of our identity. That cannot just be written down, with the Government saying, “We will give so many millions to the Irish language and so many millions to this other thing, and then we will have protected everyone.” That is not how equality legislation should work. It should be much more thoughtful and detailed.
If we are to take a perspective only on the language issue, according to the latest census in Northern Ireland, the language spoken by 95.3% of people is English. The next largest language is spoken by 1.1% of people in Northern Ireland, and that is Polish. There are no protections in our law for that. The next language, at 0.49%, is Lithuanian. There are no protections outlined about that. We come to the Irish language, spoken by 0.32% of the population, followed closely behind by Portuguese on 0.27%. So if we are to characterise this as a matter of language protection, let us protect the Polish language in Northern Ireland and the Polish people, who make a major contribution to employment. Let us identify and protect those cultures that are actually under threat, not cultures that are emboldened in certain ways by money and resources that appear to many to be unending. That is what the Bill should really be addressing, if it is about language protection.
When we come into this building through Westminster Hall, we pass under that marvellous window—the rights, equality and liberties window—that faces the portrait of Moses. That window contains representations of scrolls, and each and every one of those scrolls signifies disability rights and equality rights—I know that the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), is not interested in any of this—and all the legislation that the House has made on emancipation, the right to vote, and women’s rights and liberties. If we in the House are to make a piece of legislation to deal with equality in a part of this kingdom, we should ensure that it is fit for purpose. The reason why there is a screed of amendments on the amendment paper is because the Bill is not fit for purpose as equality legislation. It is severely damaged, and it would not reinforce the rights and liberties of the people we have talked about.
I think that the Minister expects Unionists just to vote for the Bill, to accept it and to swallow it down. In the negotiations that he hosted, I discussed the issue with him. Other Members of the House will not vote for it. They will not be compelled to vote for it or be under any pressure whatsoever to vote for it because they do not come through the door to the Chamber, yet the Minister will hand them issues that address a lot of their rights and concerns. They are entitled to have  those concerns, but that damages and demeans the issues that I have put on the agenda and in Hansard today.
The starting point for me is this: if the Bill is already broken, at what points is it not fit for purpose? Let us take New Decade, New Approach. The Chair of the Select Committee was quick to point to that as the starting point, the refresh and where we are supposed to be. Actually, the Bill breaches what was outlined in “New Decade, New Approach”. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) went into some detail, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), in an intervention, identified where some of the breaches are. Where a negotiation has taken place on what a Bill should say and do, we are used to seeing that Bill reflect the New Decade, New Approach agreement. But this Bill is completely at variance with the issues negotiated and put into New Decade, New Approach. That is why the Bill is not fit for purpose. No matter where one stood on New Decade, New Approach, that is what the Bill is supposed to represent. As a House, we should collectively take offence when we are told, “This Bill represents what was in New Decade, New Approach.” It is pretty obvious that it does not—it just doesn’t. That is the point that the Minister needs to address. In the same way that the Belfast-Good Friday agreement has been breached by the protocol arrangements, New Decade, New Approach has been breached by the Bill. That is the problem. That is why Unionists are agitated about this and why it should be fixed.
Over the past years, I have been used to hearing lots of people saying that they want to protect the terms of the Belfast agreement, but they are silent when Unionists rightly argue that that applies to all of us. “Here is an issue where there is a breach,” we say, “Let us fix it.” “Oh no, you’re not entitled to that. That’s not your rights. No, our rights are special; yours aren’t”. That is the attitude and the conduct. Maybe that is why there is silence, and will be silence, on the Labour Benches. But I tell the House one thing: if we were accused of breaching the Belfast agreement or New Decade, New Approach, there would be a statement from the White House, a statement from Dublin, a statement from all over the place. You would not be able to hear Unionists above the cacophony of noise coming from that chorus of usual suspects. That is what we would face under those circumstances. This House needs to address the issue of how the Bill breaches the New Decade, New Approach arrangement.
New Decade, New Approach had a very wide scope—I will elaborate on this—on Ulster Scots. For example, the commissioner would have powers to extend his or her full remit over the human rights treaties that have been agreed. Essentially, there were no restrictions on what the commissioner could do—they could protect the heritage, the culture and the identity of a community. But that has now been watered down to deal only with certain issues to do with language, arts and literature. The Bill does not address the real depth and detail that was specified in New Decade, New Approach. Why is that, Minister? Please explain. Why is the Bill so narrow when the expanse of the negotiations was so broad? It is as if the only thing that matters is a couple  of wee poems that an Ulster Scot person has written, or a nice piece of art that will not really offend anyone, or a mural. But the heritage, the culture, the thing that makes us a people? “Oh, you’re not having that protected—your rights. If you ever become a minority in Northern Ireland”—as some people say we are—“see if that happens, but you’re not having that protected. But you have your wee artwork and your wee bits of language. Well, that’s okay.” That is the essence of why this breach is the point.

Sammy Wilson: Even those are not protected. The powers of the commissioner are to give guidance, not direction, as is the case with the Irish language.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that very important point about the powers of the commissioner, which was going to be my next point.
Far be it from me to hand out any advice to nationalists, but if I was a nationalist, I would want to try to satisfy Unionists on this point. I would not want to laugh at them, as appears to be the attitude—

Colum Eastwood: Who’s laughing?

Ian Paisley Jnr: Laughing and pouring scorn on their identity leaves Unionists—[Interruption.] “I’m laughing at you, not what you’re saying”—so you’re laughing at a people and at a community—is the barrow-boy response that comes back. I do not say those things. I have a very good record of not saying those things. I cherish people’s identity. What makes me strong as a Unionist is that I can have my identity and understand someone else’s. I love—not despise—the diversity that is there. It is the diversity that makes us strong. That is the point that the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) should dwell on when he speaks later on. No doubt he will.
The issue—this is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made—is about having due regard in terms of the commissioner. That is the point of the authority of the commissioner. The commissioner that will deal with the identity that matters most to me will effectively be powerless and emasculated from day one, unable to make a single ruling that must be taken care of or noted.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The reality is that under the office of identity there are a number of principles set out about how identity should be respected. The office can monitor how those principles are being adhered to and report to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to believe that the current make-up of the Assembly will offer any comfort when the same Assembly, during the jubilee year of her late Majesty the Queen and the centenary year of Northern Ireland, refused to allow us to put up a little rock in the grounds of Stormont, a little stone, to commemorate the fact that Northern Ireland was 100 years old? It refused to allow us to plant a rose to mark the jubilee of her Majesty the Queen, yet the Minister expects us to have confidence that the same Assembly will protect our identity when it will not even allow us to mark our identity in that way.

Ian Paisley Jnr: My right hon. Friend really drives home the point. The problem is that it is not one or two minor encroachments; it is a catalogue and the catalogue is growing. It is not as if it has diminished in time and  these were examples from years ago. These are examples at some of the most key moments in our identity as a people: when we celebrate the jubilee of her late Majesty and when we celebrate the historic foundation of the state we cherish. When those things are threatened in the immediate past, I agree wholeheartedly with the point made so powerfully by my right hon. Friend. Under the Bill, the Government and the authorities in Northern Ireland will be obliged to listen to and direct people by one side, but they can ignore the other. If anyone on the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches thinks that that is a sensible way to address this issue, they really need to tell us how, because it just will not work. That is, and will continue to be, a recipe for disaster.
We should expand the protection of culture and heritage, because we are only going to protect one tiny part. As was outlined in the St Andrews agreement and later put into law, as section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, by the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, the Government are duty bound—Minister, I would really like you to answer this point—to “adopt a strategy” and proposals that “enhance and develop” heritage and culture. It does not say anything about language. It talks about heritage and culture, which embrace language and all those things. The law is telling us that we should have protections that develop our heritage and culture, yet the Bill will limit our heritage and culture, and any protections that will be put on them.
Members have already identified the vast resources that are spent on identity and language in Northern Ireland, and the balance is very much out of kilter—extremely so. In fact, it is through the floor on one side and through the ceiling on the other. That is how out of kilter it is. Until that issue of resourcing is properly addressed, the Bill will be unfit for purpose. Minister, I would like to see proposals and protections for my identity. I would like to see them genuinely put in place. Until that happens, the Bill will be a travesty.

Stephen Farry: Go raibh míle maith agat, Dame Eleanor. I rise to proudly support the Bill and I welcome the fact that it is back before us so quickly. I confess that I had some hope that another Bill may well be here today as well, but that does not seem to have materialised yet.
It would be useful to reference some of the comments that have been made about the Northern Ireland Office. Frankly, I have a lot of criticism to make of the Northern Ireland Office, as many Members have, but the new Minister has hit the ground in many ways through his engagement, so all credit to him. Let us be clear, however, that the Northern Ireland Office is doing only two things.
First, it is doing its best to faithfully implement what was agreed by the Northern Ireland parties in New Decade, New Approach, including by my colleagues on the DUP Benches. We had extensive or, dare I say it, tortuous negotiations—I stress that word “tortuous”—over two or three years to try to get some way forward on language and culture issues, so that we could get our institutions restored and they could get down to work. That comes from the history of there being little progress on the language issue since St Andrews. It is important that we do our best today to faithfully implement what  was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. Time has moved on and there are issues, which is why I am supporting some of the amendments. However, we need to be cautious about doing anything that unpicks what was agreed, because there was a carefully balanced compromise at that stage.
Secondly, I stress that it is regrettable that this House has to do the work to put this into law. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive had the chance to do that, notwithstanding covid, over the previous two and a half years, but that opportunity was not taken up. That process would have allowed much more scrutiny and a whole range of interest groups to tease out the issues.
I will focus primarily on amendment 1, which has tended to dominate much of the debate. It is important that we do our best here—I know it will be difficult—to separate language and culture from Unionism and nationalism as political identities. They are not the same. We often—sometimes lazily—end up in that position, but that does not really address the subtleties around language and culture in Northern Ireland, where we have a shared heritage. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) referred to Dál Riata, the kingdom that spanned the northern part of the island of Ireland and Scotland, but he also referred to Ballintoy, a town name that has an Irish root. Surnames, townland names and the names of towns and villages across Northern Ireland reflect the different language roots. There are many, many names, including in many places that would be perceived as being dominated by Unionists and Protestants, that have those Irish origins.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the hon. Member for making that point, because that diversity is there every single day of the week. Ballymena in my constituency is the middle town—the middle place—in the area. That is what it means: the middle part. I embrace those things as they are part and parcel of the identity of our culture and our country. I emphasise that this is not about despising something, but about making sure that if we are going to legislate on it, we get it right. The Bill fails to meet the New Decade, New Approach agreement, as I hope he agrees. No matter what side of the argument someone is on, it fails to meet it.

Stephen Farry: I disagree; I think that the Bill is a good, honest attempt at getting these proposals over the line. Frankly, we need to move on, get this done and get it into law.

Colum Eastwood: I thank the hon. Member for giving me a useful opportunity to make this point. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) talked about embracing diversity. That is wonderful language. In Derry, since we got rid of the old Derry Corporation, we got proper democracy into local government after the civil rights movement, and we have been embracing diversity in Derry. We have all the old Unionist and British symbols still up in the Guildhall. We have added new ones that represent other traditions, such as the one that I represent. We have also done power sharing since the beginning of that council’s inception. The Social Democratic and Labour party had the most seats, but we had a Unionist deputy mayor and we had Unionist mayors over many years. The council in the area that the hon. Member for North Antrim represents has not  had a nationalist mayor or deputy mayor since its inception. Does the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) think that that is acceptable or that it embraces diversity?

Stephen Farry: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. It did take the use of the d’Hondt method in councils to get diversity moving, although the council in question, which has been in the news somewhat—rather controversially—over the past number of months now has an Alliance mayor, so hopefully that is progress to an extent.
It is important to make the point that we should cherish diversity in Northern Ireland and that it is a crossover, cross-cutting issue. To stress that point, I will mention two individuals who have been very active on language issues. On the Irish language, there is Linda Ervine in east Belfast, who comes from a Unionist background. There is also Liam Logan in my North Down constituency—I am not sure whether he is a current member of the SDLP, but he certainly is a former member and candidate for the SDLP—who is a well-known advocate for Ulster Scots and has been broadcast on Radio Ulster many times in relation to that language.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) mentioned heritage and how Ulster Presbyterians—as well as Irish Presbyterians—were heavily involved in the revival of the Irish language towards the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century. There is a shared heritage. The problem has been that, in recent times, the language has, wrongly, become politicised and people have been forced into different camps. That is not where we should be and I hope—that may well be naive, although I trust not—that the Bill may well be a fresh start in how we embrace the language issue in Northern Ireland.

Bob Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is a good and fair man, as I know because I am on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee as well. However, there must be something that is worrying our friends in the DUP. They are all concerned about this and, rightly, we have to try to alleviate those concerns. That is quite proper and I hope very much that we can do that.

Stephen Farry: I want to listen to reasoned arguments. Some of the DUP amendments may well have merit, but I am dubious about amendment 1 for a detailed reason, which I will mention.
I also want to address the points about Polish, Lithuanian and other languages needing greater attention. It is important to move beyond that argument, which is often thrown up. The reason that the Bill is before us is not about facilitating the use of language and people who face a barrier to understanding. It is about respecting, embedding and celebrating the indigenous languages of the island of Ireland, particularly the northern part. We should, of course, do work in parallel with that to ensure that we properly integrate people with other European and global languages into our society, but it is important that Members do not fall into the trap of trying to conflate the two and diminish what we are trying to achieve with the Bill. It is also important that we celebrate the language as being cross-cutting and to recognise that Unionism and nationalism are not monolithic  in Northern Ireland. There are many other traditions. There are people who have moved away from those traditions and people who share both those traditions. We need to celebrate all that in our life in Northern Ireland.
At times, this debate has drifted into the Bill being somehow a threat to Unionism and the British identity in Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, no DUP Member has said what he just suggested. We are saying that the Bill does not adequately protect our identity and culture. We are not saying that the Bill is the threat, but that it does not adequately protect them. We have explained why and I wish that he would sometimes actually listen to what Unionists are saying, instead of being so dismissive.

Stephen Farry: With all due respect, I have been listening. People are entitled to look back through Hansard to see exactly what was said, but the tenor of many comments that have been made today is that this is some sort of slippery slope, where the British-Ulster identity is being eroded and is under threat, and that there is no protection for it and people are fearful for the future. We have to embrace a shared and integrated future in Northern Ireland. That is the only way forward.
The Bill also needs to be considered in line with the wider human rights and equality architecture in Northern Ireland. It is not about protecting two different traditions in Northern Ireland, but about language and culture, which are separate issues. We already have extensive equality protections in various legislation; I think we should have a single equality Bill to better embed them.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: It is the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill—identity, not culture.

Stephen Farry: Yes, but identity is not something that we should see in a polarised way. That is the point that I am trying to stress. Let us focus on languages and on the identity that goes with them. Let us see them not as monolithic or as the sole preserve of one side of the community or the other, but as something that is shared across the board.
The framing of the Bill, with different approaches to the Irish language and to Ulster Scots, reflects the different uses of those languages and the different demands from sectors. It also reflects the different ways in which the UK Government have embedded them in the wider European and international human rights framework around languages. The UK Government ratified the European charter for regional or minority languages with respect to Irish and Ulster Scots in 2001, but Ulster Scots was ratified only in relation to part 2 of the charter, whereas Irish was ratified in relation to parts 2 and 3. That gives some indication of the pre-existing differential approach that has fed through into the New Decade, New Approach agreement and into the Bill.
We must ensure that we do not end up creating duties and expectations that are not actually being sought. Equally, we must not magnify what is already there and build it up into some sort of trope or threat to change the complexion and nature of areas. I have to say that a  lot of fear has been whipped up about what the Bill’s provisions will do to the characteristics of some areas, which I do not think stands up to any scrutiny whatever.
One of the trade-offs in the negotiations behind New Decade, New Approach was that what is being done in relation to Irish is seen in perhaps a narrower sense around language, whereas the demand in relation to Ulster Scots was to do things on a much wider basis and over a wider range of areas. We do not talk about the Irish identity in the same way that we talk about the Irish language in the Bill, or in the same way that we have added the Ulster British identity to the Ulster Scots language. Already, in the framing of the terminology, we are not seeing a like-for-like comparison. Once again, that illustrates a differential approach in the legislation.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The hon. Member touches on an important point. I am not prepared to have my aspiration determined and defined by the aspirations of others. If the key demand of nationalists is that the Bill do what it does for the Irish language, that is their right, but at no stage during the NDNA negotiations did we ever suggest that our aspiration for this legislation was limited to language. We made it absolutely clear that it was not limited to Ulster Scots; it was about protecting our Ulster British heritage, culture and identity. Why does the hon. Member feel that his Unionist constituents in North Down should have their aspiration limited to conform to the aspirations of others who have limited their demand to language? We never did so. We were clear about what we sought to achieve. I therefore think that the hon. Member does not understand, and does not seek to understand, where we are coming from.

Stephen Farry: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his comments, but I fear he has misunderstood what I am saying. I am not attacking the Bill in that respect; I am pointing out that there is already an in-built differential. What happened in relation to the Irish language was focused more narrowly on language and arguably went deeper in that respect, whereas what happened in relation to Ulster Scots and Ulster British is wider in NDNA and in the legislation, but does not go quite as deep. That is the fundamental differential—one is deeper, one is wider—and that is perfectly fine.
I am not seeking to diminish anything or remove anything from the Bill. I simply make the point that in the Irish language aspects there is not the same reference to the equivalent of an Ulster British identity. That reflects the different demands in the negotiations and confirms my point that what we have before us was hammered out extensively in negotiations over several years. All the arguments that hon. Members—the few of us who are here—are hearing today have been rehearsed many, many times. Very little has been said that is particularly new.
Let me move on from amendment 1 and touch briefly on some others. Amendment 6 addresses the use of the word “sensitivities”—a word that I think the Government should reflect on removing from the Bill. As the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) outlined, the qualifier for someone’s use of their rights should be someone else’s rights, as it is in international and domestic human rights law. “Sensitivities” is a very subjective term, and its use could be seen as implying that not liking what someone is saying or doing, in terms of  culture, is a reason to intervene and stop it happening. The criterion for stopping something happening should not be simply whether someone is offended, but whether someone’s rights are infringed.
It would be a nice gesture if the public authority duty were extended to the Northern Ireland Office, not least because the new Minister of State is very active in Northern Ireland. If the Bill is good enough for public authorities in the devolved space, it should be good enough for the NIO, at least in terms of how it operates within Northern Ireland.
Amendment 13 concerns safeguards. Regretfully, I have to say that it is necessary to have an assurance that if there is no progress on the appointment of an Irish language commissioner, the Northern Ireland Office may need to intervene. The same applies to the publication of standards. My wish is for the devolved structures to be restored and to make quick progress on appointments and the approval of standards, but regretfully I must say that evidence from the past two and a half years or more and from what has been said today does not fill me with optimism that will happen. I have spoken to the Minister and I fully appreciate that it is not the Government’s intention to come in with a heavy hand, but it may well be necessary.
My final point relates to the Castlereagh Foundation. I have no issue with the foundation being referred to in the Bill along with the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. The fact that we have the office reflects how the Bill is engaging with language and identity issues in Northern Ireland; it is broader than what we are doing with respect to the Irish and Ulster Scots languages. It is important to have proper transparency. I must point out to the Minister the lack of transparency in the appointments process whenever the advisory panel was put in place in relation to the Castlereagh Foundation. I seek assurances from him that that will not be the practice in future.

Carla Lockhart: You will know, Dame Eleanor, as we know, that Northern Ireland works best when our communities feel fairly treated. Our amendments are about offering that fairness to those with a Unionist background. They do not disadvantage those who genuinely cherish the Irish language. Instead, they are about ensuring that the provisions both on Irish and on Ulster British and Ulster Scots are equitable and can truly be described as fair by all, and that no identity recognised by the Bill can be seen through any prism as having any “for one” advantage.
Unamended, the Bill will be rejected by the Unionist community. We will reject it because the Bill places the community’s Ulster British and Ulster Scots identity on a plinth below that on which Irish language is placed. That is not the basis for successful consensus legislation, but the foundation for division, mistrust and agitation.
We have sought to engage positively with the Minister of State to address these concerns. It is a matter of deep regret that despite warm words, he has indicated that he will endorse this inequality. That is regrettable, but reflective of the trajectory to which officials in the Northern Ireland Office remain wedded when faced with Unionist concerns.
The Minister needs to understand one thing, however. On Second Reading, I made it clear that as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement, those who are making the birthday cake cannot start removing the key ingredients. Cross-community consent, the devolution settlement and parity of esteem all seem to be being slowly but surely eroded from the way in which Northern Ireland is approached by this Government, and, indeed, by the cheerleaders for the agreement. The Bill is a perfect example of that approach. At the same time, the Minister must grasp the fact that if the Government are not faithful to their commitments in “New Decade, New Approach”, this party will see NDNA as dead. He will understand all too well what that means for the restoration of devolved government. Our amendments can remedy that—they can prevent such a situation from ensuing—and I hope that the House will support amendments that can avert such an unsatisfactory outcome.
That leads me to amendment 20, tabled by my colleagues and me. The matters addressed in the Bill are devolved issues, and they ought to be dealt with if and when a new Executive are formed. What we have, however, is a remarkable overreach in terms of the powers bestowed on the Secretary of State in this regard. I believe that the Government cannot credibly oppose other amendments to the Bill on the basis that they deviate from the terms of New Decade, New Approach, while at the same time granting the Secretary of State unprecedented powers which denigrate the need for cross-community consent and cut across devolved competencies.
The Government may view these as dormant measures that will be activated only in extreme circumstances, but that is not the effect they will have. These powers will have a corrosive effect on relationships within the Executive, and will amount to an invitation to either the First or the Deputy First Minister not to seek agreement and instead to lobby the Government to intervene unilaterally. This sets an unhelpful precedent, and follows hard on the heels of the decision of previous Governments to override Ministers in areas such as abortion and the implementation of the protocol. The Government should not make themselves hostage to the manufactured grievance factory of Sinn Féin or any other parties.
We saw that this issue was weaponised for three years to block the restoration of an Executive in Northern Ireland. The hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for North Down (Stephen Farry) stood shoulder to shoulder with those who demanded no return of Stormont until this issue was addressed.

Claire Hanna: Will the hon. Member give way?

Carla Lockhart: No, I will not.

Claire Hanna: Will the hon. Member retract that?

Carla Lockhart: I will not retract what I have said. It is absolutely correct: you stood shoulder to shoulder during the time when the Executive were pulled down by Sinn Féin at the behest of its demands. The same political activists will adopt the same approach should they not be appeased again. Like many others, there is little faith in the Northern Ireland Office's ability to withstand such demands. That is a road to further instability and division in our Province.
Intertwined with this issue is the role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and in that context we have tabled amendments 26, 27 and 28. These amendments underline the importance of political accountability and consensual ministerial agreement in the exercise of the functions of the headline offices and bodies established by the Bill. The two commissioners and the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression will ultimately be appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers. Compliance with guidance or directions mutually agreed by those Ministers must therefore be a defining feature of their operation. We would point out that the wording “must comply” is drawn word for word from the three draft Bills published in the aftermath of “New Decade, New Approach”. The existing drafting in this Bill reneges on that provision, emphasising the power to direct rather than the duty to comply.
There is an urgent need to place consensus working and cross-community protections at the heart of our politics. That is the key to the parity of esteem that all parties claim to value and cherish. As I have said before, it is ignored in the Bill, and the Government have the opportunity to address that.
Amendment 1 and amendments 2 to 5 address the duty to have regard to Ulster Scots guidance, and the current imbalance in the enforceability and robustness of the functions of the commissioner for the Ulster British Ulster Scots tradition in comparison with those specified in the Bill empowering the Irish language commissioner. The amendments, if accepted, would extend the grounds on which a complaint can be brought to the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition to cover the conduct of public authorities in relation to all the guidance that they issue. Importantly, it would deliver parity of esteem by applying a due-regard duty for advice and guidance to the Ulster British Ulster Scots commissioner comparable with that which applies to the Irish language commissioner. The Bill, as currently drafted, creates an office for Ulster British Ulster Scots in which the commissioner can be ignored. With no binding duty or incentive for public bodies to adhere to recommendations from the commissioner, the likely impact of such a commissioner is seriously restricted. To the Unionist community, such a toothless tiger is not acceptable. We will not be bought off with the image of a commissioner with the substance of a ghost.
It is window dressing to expand the scope of the Ulster Scots commissioner to arts and literature but not to include guidance issued in those areas as eligible for the purposes of complaints. Limiting the scope to language is not fair or balanced. It has always been recognised that in order for the Unionist community to be afforded a commissioner who is of equal value to it as the Irish language commissioner is to the nationalist community, it must have a broader focus than language, because the development of bilingual service provision in Ulster Scots has never been a priority for Unionists. If adding arts and literature to the scope of the commissioner was deemed necessary by the Government to offset the risk of the added value for Irish language trumping Ulster Scots, it follows that the parameters of the complaint’s mechanism should also be extended.
Amendments 21 and 22 seek to right a failure in the Bill as drafted relating to the Castlereagh Foundation. The amendments tabled by my party colleagues in the other place would have required the Secretary of State to take action and establish the foundation. The eventual provisions to be enacted are ambiguous and provide an escape clause for the Government to farm out the function to an outside body without a clear explanation.
Throughout my comments, I have cited instances in which there is a departure from NDNA, and we see this once again in relation to the Castlereagh Foundation. The NDNA obligation on the Government to fund the foundation is precisely that: an obligation on the Government. We do not believe it would be appropriate to vest this power on the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression irrespective of whether it is deemed an operationally independent branch. Moreover, the change ushered in by the Lords does not go far enough in respect of funding and establishment. It is not appropriate for clause 8 to rest as merely a permissive power which the Secretary of State may or may not use.
Let me now deal with our amendments relating to cost to the public purse. Amendments 31 to 35—again, in the names of my colleagues and me—address the fact that there is currently no mechanism in the Bill to ensure transparency and accountability with regard to public spending on each of the bodies and officers established. It would be wholly wrong for one office to run at a disproportionate cost to the other in fulfilling its duties. The existence of such a mechanism is therefore vital to ensuring parity of esteem between the various traditions.
An indicative £9 million is stipulated in the explanatory notes in relation to the establishment and operation of the two commissioners and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. However, there is no equivalent assessment of the likely financial implications for public authorities of having to give due regard to Irish language best practice standards and respond to advice on Ulster Scots. This is alarming: it is alarming for councils, who are looking at double-digit rate rises on hard-pressed householders; it is alarming for housing associations and our Housing Executive, who have record waiting lists and a homelessness epidemic to address; and it is alarming for our health trusts, who face unprecedented pressures.

Jim Shannon: I rise to reinforce what my hon. Friend says about councils. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council enforced Irish language signage in Saintfield town against the wishes of the people there. That is an example of pushing something that local people do not want.

Carla Lockhart: At a significant cost, no doubt, to the ratepayer.
Ultimately, in the delivery of visible and frontline public services, the measure will mean substantive added cost. The new Prime Minister has been elected on his handling of the public finances; let us have some management of public money in this Bill.
The last amendment I will address is amendment 29. This amendment would revise and expand the functions of the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition. The commissioner would be responsible for developing the language, culture and heritage associated  with the tradition, reflecting the body of established work and existing human rights law. It is clear that all of the 70-plus public authorities engaged by the legislation provide services using a language and that the bilingual objective of an Irish language commissioner is such that they could all logically receive guidance from the Irish language commissioner. By contrast, the fact that there is no objective or duty for the 70-plus public authorities to operate bilingually using the Ulster Scots language means that the comparative engagement by the Ulster Scots Ulster British tradition commissioner will be far less. The addition of “arts and literature” is likely only to result in a slight increase in guidance for Ulster Scots. Thus a fundamental inequality remains. In this context, the case for widening the scope of the Ulster Scots Ulster British tradition commissioner to “heritage and culture” is very strong. Such a function is more likely to cut across the 70-plus bodies and have a more substantive impact for the Unionist community.
Colleagues have addressed other amendments and I am sure some will be picked up in the winding-up remarks. I urge the Government and the Minister to take heed of our desire to make this Bill better by making it consistent with NDNA, and consistent with the principles that lie at the heart of our political process around cross-community consent. I ask the Minister to seize the opportunity and to support our amendments.

Sammy Wilson: First, I want to make it clear that, although the Bill was part of the NDNA agreement, the priority given to this issue at this time will bemuse many in Northern Ireland, and I suspect many in this House as well. A Government who say we have to tighten public expenditure and cut the number of quangos then promote a Bill which will have substantial costs attached to it and will set up three more quangos. At this particular time, people will ask whether that is a wise move.
I could understand it if the issues we are addressing today were being totally ignored in public policy in Northern Ireland, but they are not. As I pointed out in an intervention, the Irish language already attracts substantial public funds, and those who wish to speak the Irish language have lots of opportunities to learn it, speak it, promote it and enjoy it in Northern Ireland, running to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.
Irish language schools are opened with a fraction of the number of pupils that would see a state school, a voluntary school or Catholic maintained school closed, so there is preferential treatment in the promotion of Irish language in education. A substantial amount of money goes into Irish language broadcasting, too. I do not know how many people listen to the BBC programmes, broadcast at prime times, in the Irish language, but I suspect there are not too many, yet substantial public money goes into that.
Where people wish to have Irish street names in Northern Ireland, they can have them—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, sometimes even where they do not want them nationalist councils will impose them at substantial funding. And of course Irish language festivals are granted substantial amounts of money every year.
So the idea that the Irish language is not well catered for in Northern Ireland is wrong. I have nothing against it. Indeed I think I am one of the few Unionist MPs who have done this: when approached by members of the Irish language community to promote a book in my constituency, where there are Irish language speakers, I hired the facility from the council and got the leaflets out. Some keen Irish language speakers attended—very few, I have to say, even though there are a substantial number in my constituency, apparently—and the author of the book was more than thankful that a Unionist had helped facilitate this in a Unionist community. So I am not against people speaking Irish, but I do question whether it should have the priority it has.
I want to make something very clear. We are not erecting a building that is fixed; we are planting a tree today. And we are not planting a slow-growing beech tree; we are planting a fast-growing leylandii language tree, which will absorb huge amounts of public money over time, and unfortunately it will not be possible to apply the high hedges legislation to it because the commissioner will be able to stop anyone trying to cut it down to size. We must bear that in mind.
My second general point is that this legislation was part of the NDNA initiative. It was designed to get the Assembly up and running again. Many commitments were made in that, and the commitments made in respect of this particular aspect have been well overstepped. I am not blaming the Minister for that; I know that he is not too amused by me making some criticism of him, but personal friends do criticise each other now and again, especially when they are wrong.

Steven Baker: Just let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not worry about it; we will talk about it over a cup of tea.

Sammy Wilson: I assure the Minister that I am not worried about it, just in case he thought I was. But he must ask why and how did this get changed? Who changed it? Who took the initiative to change the terms of the Bill we now have before us? I have to say that I stand by the points I have made, because I have made them time and again, and Unionists are frustrated with the Northern Ireland Office, whose default position seems to be that if Sinn Féin wants something, it has got to be given, for whatever reason.
What we can be sure of is that some of the changes have been made not at the behest of Unionists, not even in compliance with what was agreed during New Decade, New Approach, but because of the whisperings that something that could not be achieved in negotiations should be delivered in another way. That is why I take exception to this, and I am angry at the Minister, because he has had spelled out to him the dangers and the imbalances that lie in the Bill and the way in which it is going to promote not unity or harmony but further division—division that he himself is now accepting and that he might well have to referee and adjudicate on. That is why he has included powers in the Bill that were never originally intended.

Steven Baker: I will deal with the things that the right hon. Gentleman is raising when I come to my remarks, but I think it has to be said for the benefit of the Committee and the public that, just as he is accusing us of doing whatever Sinn Féin suggests, we are accused of  pandering to the DUP by Sinn Féin. I think everybody should take stock and remember that, as was said earlier, this Bill is an attempt faithfully to implement New Decade, New Approach in good faith, and we are only doing it in this House because the Assembly is not up and running. When I get to my remarks, I hope that I will demonstrate to him the sincerity with which I have engaged with his and others’ passionate pleas on this point, and if he would leave just a little room in his rage for me to respond at the end, I would be grateful.

Sammy Wilson: I would be interested to hear how the Minister has pandered to the DUP on this Bill. We have highlighted that what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach is not in it and we have shown him where the imbalances are, and I would like to see where he believes he has balanced towards the point of view that we have expressed in this debate or in the discussions we had with him earlier.
Those are the introductory remarks I want to make. Let me come to some of the amendments and explain why they are necessary. We have asked for an amendment to clause 1, in amendment 27, to ensure that the views of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are taken into account by the commissioners. Why is that necessary? It is necessary for one particular reason: once commissioners are appointed, if there is no accountability and no restraint or rein on those commissioners, they will be able to do what they want without any political accountability. They could recommend and introduce measures that could have huge political consequences and cause massive political division, annoyance and costs. If they are not subject to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, there will be no restraint on them.
One thing the Minister can be absolutely sure of is that he is not going to get anyone applying for these posts who does not feel strongly about these issues. In fact, these posts are going to attract people who are zealots, who believe in what they are being asked to do and who want to promote what they are being asked to promote. If they are left unrestrained, he can be sure that they will be making recommendations, giving guidance and making demands that will cause difficulties to the people who have to adhere to them. And of course they will want to build their impact. That is why it is important that there is some accountability and some political restraint on them. For positions such as these, we cannot allow somebody to be appointed who has no curtailment upon them.
The second amendment I want to address is the one about the powers of the commissioner. It follows from the first amendment that I have spoken about, because not only are we going to have commissioners who will have no political accountability if we do not require them to act in response to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, but when they obtain those positions, there will be an unequal balance in their powers. The Irish language commissioner can issue guidance, look at best practice, listen to complaints about what people want and then make recommendations to which public bodies will have to show due regard. It is not that the public bodies should do so or might do so; they must do so. They must show due regard to the  issues that come from the commissioner’s office. In the case of the Ulster Scots commissioner, there are no such powers. The Ulster Scots commissioner can issue guidance, to which public bodies may or may not show due regard. They might decide to act on it, or they might not. If they do not decide to act on it, people can complain. What will the commissioner do? The commissioner will write a report to say that they have not acted on it.
This becomes even more important when one asks who the chief offenders are when it comes to ignoring and abusing the likes of councils or public bodies and discriminating against the views of one side or the other. The leader of my party has already given examples. At Stormont, when we wanted to celebrate the Queen’s jubilee, we could not even plant a rose bush. When we wanted to commemorate the anniversary of Northern Ireland, we could not even put a stone in the ground. That was a result of a decision by a bigoted Sinn Féin Minister who had control of the grounds of Stormont and refused to give any recognition to what Unionists regarded as their heritage and their culture.
Let us contrast that with what happened when the Gaelic Athletic Association wanted to commemorate its 125th anniversary. I have great reservations about the GAA, especially given the fact that it names clubs after murderers. I was in the same position as Conor Murphy was when the GAA asked to plant a tree in the grounds of Stormont to commemorate its 125th anniversary. I did not agree with the GAA and I had many reservations about the way in which it behaved, but I accepted that it was part of the nationalist tradition and the nationalist sporting culture and without hesitation I gave it the permission to do so.
It is the same across Sinn Féin-dominated councils and nationalist-dominated councils in Northern Ireland—in some cases the SDLP went along with Sinn Féin rather than stand up against it—where money was refused to community groups to celebrate the Queen’s jubilee and the anniversary of Northern Ireland, statues were taken down, windows were removed and emblems were taken out of council chambers. What would the purpose of a commissioner have been in those circumstances, if they had been afforded the same powers as those being afforded to the Irish language commissioner? That commissioner would have had the ability to go to those councils and require them to recognise the Unionist culture and heritage and then require them to behave in a way that gave recognition to it. This Bill does not give the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition the power to do that, but it gives the Irish language commissioner the power to go to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council in my area, for example, and dictate that it must spend money on the Irish language even if that is not wanted by the council or by residents.

Paul Girvan: My right hon. Friend mentions putting up a stone or memorial, or planting a rose bush, to commemorate the centenary of Northern Ireland. A complaint was lodged by those working in the Northern Ireland Office about a picture of the Queen hanging on the wall, asking that it be removed. The Northern Ireland Office, a Department run by this Government, actually wants to remove the Queen’s painting or photograph from its work environment, which proves how unfair it is.

Sammy Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That controversy might indicate the political colour of some of those who populate the Northern Ireland Office, which bears out the point I made earlier.
How does the Minister believe that this Bill protects the heritage, culture, language and interests of Unionists, especially Unionists living in nationalist-dominated council areas, when the commissioner is not being given the powers to do that? Why will the Irish language commissioner have the power to require public bodies to have due regard?

Eleanor Laing: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I have not set any time limits or restrictions, but I had hoped for co-operation to make the Committee work well this afternoon. He has now been on his feet for 19 minutes, which is a long time. I hope that he will now draw his remarks to a close, because I would at least like to call the leader of his party before the wind-ups. I hope he will show some consideration for the rest of the Committee.

Sammy Wilson: I will, of course, obey your request, Dame Eleanor.
Can the Minister show how that discrepancy in this Bill will give Unionists the same protection? He is welcome to get involved in the quagmire, the chaos, the complaints and the friction that this Bill will cause. He may say that the Bill will be light-touch, but I suspect he will be dragged into controversies over it time and again. A requirement to impose rather than reach agreement is not a good way to proceed. With the powers the Bill gives to the Minister, he can be sure that the default position will always be that is for him to decide. Rather than reaching a resolution on these issues, it will become yet another focus for controversy.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for North Down (Stephen Farry), my hon. Friends the Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for their contributions this afternoon.
I will not rehearse the arguments that have been made very effectively by my colleagues, but I will touch on the politics of all this, which is very important and needs to be understood by those on the Government Front Bench. I was present during the negotiations on New Decade, New Approach, and the hon. Member for North Down is right that the negotiations on identity and language were tortuous, detailed and lengthy, because these issues are very sensitive in Northern Ireland. We know that, and we know some of the trouble we have had in Northern Ireland on issues arising from identity, culture and so on.
We want to get to a new place where we mark our diversity of culture, identity, language and so on through respect. That is the landing zone for us. When I look at this Bill, I recall clearly what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach, and I understand clearly, as a senior member of the DUP negotiating team, what we signed  up to. I remember the detailed arguments that took place within our party about NDNA and the detailed consideration we gave this aspect of that agreement, and I am clear that the Bill does not reflect what we agreed.
My colleagues have made reference to the other draft Bills that were published and the difference there is in respect of NDNA. I wrote to the Minister—I am not going to repeat what I said in a very lengthy letter to him—setting this out in detail. He asked us on Second Reading to explain where we were able to highlight a disparity between what was in NDNA and what is in the Bill, and we have done that in detail. I was disappointed with his response to that, because I do not think the Northern Ireland Office understands fully the strength of feeling on these Benches about this matter. That is important, because we cannot support the Bill in its current form, which means we cannot go out to promote it to the communities we represent. The Bill will therefore fail in its objective, which is to promote respect in Northern Ireland, because the Unionist community—those of us who come from an Ulster British, Ulster Scots background—do not feel that it adequately respects and protects our identity.
Our identity is much wider than just the question of language. I will not repeat what I said to the hon. Member for North Down, but let me say that if nationalist parties wanted to use this vehicle to achieve what they have sought to achieve on language, we were clear that our objectives and aspirations were much broader than the issue of language. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford made that point clear. I therefore believe that the Bill fails adequately to offer the protection we wanted for our identity, culture and heritage, and so the Bill is not adequate.
I say to the Minister that we on this side of the House have watched closely the actions of the NIO in the past week. We are coming up to an Assembly election, we are told by the Secretary of State. The draft Order Paper for business for this week did not include this Bill. I was told by the then Government Chief Whip that the legislation would not come until after any Assembly election, in order to avoid any perception that there would be an attempt by the Government to influence the election. Yet here we are, with the Bill fast-tracked. All of a sudden it is on the Order Paper and we find that the Government are putting a tick in the Sinn Féin box. Sinn Féin can go out after today and say, “We achieved what we set out to achieve.”

Stephen Farry: This is a point of information, which I hope will be of service to the House. To be fair to the Government, this Committee stage was announced in last Thursday’s business statement, so it did not come as a surprise in the sense that we were bounced today with this Bill; it was properly telegraphed, as far as I am concerned.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I did not say that; I said that when the draft order was published last week, this was not on the Order Paper. I spoke to the then Chief Whip, who gave me the assurance that such a sensitive issue as this would not be debated further until after any Assembly election, yet here we are.
I have to look at this and come to the conclusion that there appears in the NIO to be fairly blunt attempt, in fast-tracking this legislation today and in refusing to take any amendments to deal with Unionist concerns, to further an agenda. I do not say that lightly. I am not given to making accusations that have no substance. I believe that this is a blunt attempt by the Northern Ireland Office to deliver a key demand made by Sinn Féin so that Sinn Féin can go to the polls and trumpet their achievement, and not to accept any Unionist amendments so that Unionism cannot go out and say, “We believe this is a fair and balanced approach to very sensitive issues.”
When we signed up to the New Decade, New Approach agreement, it was about the terms for restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland after three years of Sinn Féin saying that we could not have a Government until the Irish language issue was addressed. That is an indisputable fact. That was their key demand. New Decade, New Approach was therefore a package that was designed to address the concerns of people across the community, and it was the basis for restoring devolved government.
For Unionism, two key elements—among others—of that agreement helped us take the decision to go back into the power-sharing Executive. One was the UK Government’s commitment to protect and restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. Two and a half years later, that has not been delivered. That is why, in February, I reluctantly had to take steps to withdraw the then First Minister—because the Government  had not delivered their New Decade, New Approach commitment.
The second element was ensuring a balanced outcome on language and identity. The Bill destroys that balanced outcome. I therefore say to the Minister in all candour that if the Bill goes through unamended, we will have to return to the issue, because it is a key part of New Decade, New Approach. The measure needs to be balanced and respect the identity and culture of the Ulster British and Ulster Scots communities in Northern Ireland. We will not settle for second best. We will not settle for our identity and culture being treated as second class.
Our amendments are not about changing the provisions on the Irish language. We are not seeking to level down. We are not trying to diminish the rights in the Bill. We want to ensure parity of esteem for the Ulster British and Ulster Scots tradition, heritage and culture. We are not seeking to do anyone down. We want—to use a phrase that the Government often use—to level up, so that our identity, culture and heritage can be fully protected and respected, just as we expect the identity, heritage and culture of others to be protected and respected.

Colum Eastwood: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way, but will he bring a little clarity to some of his remarks? He said that DUP Members would return to the issue. He is entitled to his opinion and position on any issue, but we already have no Government in Northern Ireland because of the DUP’s stance on the protocol—we will not debate that today. What exactly is the right hon. Member saying about the  DUP’s position if the Bill goes through? In my view, we have a desperate need for a Government in Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I agree that we want the political institutions to be up and running. We have often heard from others that agreements should be honoured. That is often the mantra of others. New Decade, New Approach is not being honoured today. I simply say to the hon. Member and the House that we will not settle for the Bill as the final outcome. We will continue to argue our case that further protections need to be provided. I will listen carefully and closely to the Minister. This is not the end of the matter. It needs to be dealt with properly. We need fairness, equity and parity of esteem. We have often been told that that is what we want. That is what we need, and that is what I desire for the communities that we represent.
I say to the Minister—and I will listen to what he has to say—that I and my colleagues are disappointed that the outcome today is an unwillingness and an inflexibility on the part of the Northern Ireland Office, in the mouth of an election that the Government will call, to accept Unionist amendments to a Bill that is about providing equity, parity of esteem and respect for the diverse culture, heritage, traditions and languages of the people of Northern Ireland. It is not lost on us that the haste the Government have shown in bringing the Bill forward and concluding its proceedings before the election and in ignoring Unionist concerns has, for us, an implication for the election. That is a matter of deep regret because the Government should be above that, and they should tread sensitively when they deal with these issues.

Peter Kyle: I congratulate the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), on retaining his position on the Front Bench. I am sure that he had an anxious few days waiting by the phone. I also congratulate his boss, the Secretary of State, who I know is engaged elsewhere on business related to Northern Ireland.
As I start my comments, I am very conscious of the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) about the sensitivity of the issues that we are discussing here today. I am very aware of the sensitivities relating to identity and language in Northern Ireland. As I have said numerous times, I regret that I am standing at the Dispatch Box speaking to these comments. I wish that all these issues had been resolved within the Assembly. I hope that the follow-up from this—let us be honest, the Bill will pass—is that that can be redressed and that any wash-up that needs to come will be dealt with locally.
For reasons that I will come on to, I do not want to take up too much time of this debate. Northern Ireland voices need to be heard, and I am glad that so many have been heard so far. Our view is that the Bill broadly keeps with the identity and language commitments made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Language and identity issues have clearly always played a part in the peace process, and this Bill is a welcome development in creating an unambiguous framework for them.
It is important to remember that the Bill is an amalgamation of three draft Bills. These separate Bills were published alongside the New Decade, New Approach agreement. They were supposed to go through the Northern Ireland Assembly where I am sure that, with scrutiny, they could have been improved on and developed. Again, it is with regret that we are dealing with the legislation in this place, but the Government are right to uphold their commitment to take the legislation through Westminster when Stormont is unwilling or unable to do so. Nevertheless, it does present a challenge for how we approach the amendments today. We are conscious of not straying too far from the deal that was struck some years ago between the then Secretary of State, the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government.
Moreover, there was a very short period of time between the stages of the Bill in this House. As a result, there have been fewer opportunities for the Opposition to engage with important stakeholders. Some of the groups that I have spoken to feel frustrated that they have not been consulted to the degree that they would have wished. I had a constructive meeting with representatives from the Ulster-Scots Agency yesterday, but I would not want the Committee to misconstrue having a meeting as an endorsement from them. I fear that others may have done so, and I do not want to fall into the same trap. They have misgivings about the Bill and I have committed to meet them again afterwards to understand their concerns and to see how they can be addressed. As I said to them yesterday, I understand that this is most likely to happen from a position of this Bill having passed through Parliament. I would like to explore with them how the issues they are raising can be addressed, and I hope the Minister will similarly agree.
May I remind the Committee that the agency was set up by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement? I hope the Minister will keep engaging with it as much as possible. I have also met with Conradh na Gaeilge—

Jim Shannon: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off Ulster-Scots, I understand and respect him for his meetings with all the organisations that he should meet, but when he met the Ulster-Scots Agency it put forward a point of view on this legislation, asking for the same thing we are asking for. How does he see this legislation addressing the concerns of the Ulster Scots, when it is here to make those changes?

Peter Kyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the comments he made earlier, which I learned a great deal from. I see this going forward via the Northern Ireland Assembly taking it forward in Northern Ireland. That is how it must happen. I am happy, from the Opposition perspective and as the aspiring Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to start engaging and keep the engagement going, but I am aware that the best place to resolve these issues is within Northern Ireland itself. I hope we can create the circumstances and the Government will redouble their efforts to deliver on the commitments made to all parties in Northern Ireland, which so far have been elusive.
I also met yesterday with Conradh na Gaeilge, which has suggested parts of the Bill it believes could be strengthened regarding the Irish language commissioner. Taking this Bill through in one piece in this place,  instead of in three separate Bills in Northern Ireland, has let those groups down. I am grateful for all the help those organisations have given—their expertise is invaluable. I also note that the Government Minister in the other place stated that he saw this legislation as being open to updates in Stormont once the Assembly has returned.
Our Opposition amendments 15 to 17 are probing amendments, and I hope the Minister will engage with them in good spirit. The amendments are simple and would expand the definition of public authority within the Bill to include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. There were amendments accepted in the other place to address concerns that had cropped up since New Decade, New Approach. For example, the addition of the Castlereagh Foundation was not part of the draft legislation, but keeps within the wider agreement.
It is with that approach in mind that we have tabled our amendments today. The Bill currently excludes the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission from being subject to the proposed statutory provisions. As these bodies have a base in Northern Ireland and focus solely on Northern Ireland, it does not seem logical that they are not included. It seems to be accepted that both bodies will have a substantial role to play once the legislation is established. Considering the Northern Ireland Office is taking such an active approach with this Bill, I do not think it is unreasonable for it to have regard to the principles in it.
When these matters were discussed in the other place, the Minister conceded this point when he said:
“Of course, given the close interest of the Northern Ireland Office in the New Decade, New Approach commitments on which the Bill delivers, I would still expect consideration to be given to the national and cultural identity principles set out in the first part of the Bill, and the guidance issued by the respective commissioners. I would expect much the same with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2022; Vol. 823, c. 1020.]
For the benefit of our friends and hard-working members of Hansard, that was said in House of Lords Hansard, Volume 823, debated on Wednesday 6 July.
I do not believe that the uncertainty between what is expected and what is legislated is necessary. That is something the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission itself has made a compelling argument for amending. Its detailed briefing on the Bill stated:
“While it is reasonable to expect that such public authorities will act in good faith and comply with the Bill to the best of their ability, if they are not supported to do so it is likely that their actions will be significantly limited”
It recommended that the interpretation of public authority be amended to reflect section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which goes far beyond what our amendments suggest.
There is also the example of how Welsh language legislation works in this regard, which the Government could learn from. I am very curious to hear whether the Government’s views on amendments 15 to 17 have developed.
Turning to other amendments under consideration, we are supportive of amendments 6 and 7, which received support from all parties when they were discussed in the other place. We share the concerns about qualifying cultural expression on the basis of the sensitivities of others. Human rights groups have pointed out that it is  not clear how that should be interpreted in practice. Without further definition, the concept of the sensitivities of others is subjective. We are concerned that it could restrict free expression purely on the basis of the prejudice and intolerance of others to such expression. When I put that to the Minister on Second Reading, he stated that,
“the approach we are taking is consistent with the draft legislation published alongside NDNA; it really is for OICE to implement this in practice.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 198.]
We understand why the Government do not want to stray too far from what was previously agreed, but that puts the new Office of Identity and Cultural Expression in a very difficult position as it will have to work out immediately what “sensitivities” mean in practice.
To take a step back, the Bill has been praised for trying to depoliticise language and cultural issues in Northern Ireland. In my opinion, the amendments would improve the Bill in that regard as there would be no further debate on the meaning of “sensitivities”. Using a human rights basis would provide much more certainty about the limits of cultural expression.
Finally, we are sympathetic to amendment 1. It would oblige public authorities to give due regard to the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition. When I met the Ulster-Scots Agency, it felt very strongly about that. The agency helpfully pointed me to the relevant passage of New Decade, New Approach, which says:
“The functions of the Commissioner will be to…provide advice and guidance to public authorities, including where relevant on the effect and implementation, so far…affecting Ulster Scots”.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said:
“For the Commissioner’s advisory function to be meaningful, public authorities must be required to have regard to that advice.”
For that reason, we support amendment 1.

Steven Baker: What a debate it has been. Such passion and fire in Committee is relatively unusual, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government.
The first thing I should say is that we have engaged widely with the Ulster-Scots Agency, Conradh na Gaeilge and others. I have been pleased to do so and Opposition Members spoke about the Government and me hitting the ground running and making good progress. That is why we have been so active in Northern Ireland, because we have engaged. Of course, we will continue to engage. Before we go any further, I should say that of course we will keep the operation of the Bill under review, but let us not forget that, as was pointed out, the Bill is before the House only because the Assembly is not able to take it through. It is an attempt to implement New Decade, New Approach faithfully and I want to get on to some of the detail about that.
We have worked closely with right hon. and hon. Members. I am grateful to the leader of the DUP, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), for his letter, and we have exchanged lengthy letters. I will not have time to get into all the points he made, but to make the best use of the time available I  think I should turn directly to the DUP amendments. The Government stayed in regular contact with the DUP and the five parties to New Decade, New Approach on the content of the Bill and we have certainly appreciated regular engagement at both an official and a political level. This morning, the right hon. Gentleman and I met to discuss the provisions and I am under absolutely no illusions whatsoever about the great and earnest passion with which he approaches these issues.
I am 51 years of age and a former Royal Air Force engineer officer. Anyone can work out what the security situation was when I was a young man, so it takes quite a deal of Christian charity for me not to respond in kind when I am accused of pandering to Sinn Féin. I think perhaps we had better leave that there. I have no intention of pandering to Sinn Féin; I am a Unionist and I am under an obligation to play my part in governing Northern Ireland impartially, and that is what I intend to do.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley particularly talked about the delay in memorialising the victims of Enniskillen. It is shocking to think that anyone stood in the way of memorialising the victims and it is frankly shaming on those who stood in the way of putting that memorial in place, but I do not think the amendment he proposes will solve that problem or category of problem.

Colum Eastwood: rose—

Steven Baker: I am very short of time, but I will give way.

Colum Eastwood: I understand that, but I think that it is important to put this point on the record. We have heard talk about Sinn Féin this and Sinn Féin that, so will the Minister maybe take the opportunity to put it on the record that people who love the Irish language do not necessarily vote for Sinn Féin? It is a language that has been embraced by people from right across our community; it is not a political tool and it should not be treated as one. That has been part of the problem up to now.

Steven Baker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. I am also conscious that I need to respect the fact that Sinn Féin are not here to speak for themselves, but I do engage with them regularly and I hope that they have found that I do so respectfully. I just wanted to make the point to the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have made some strident allegations towards me and towards the NIO, and I hope that they will not mind if I respond gently that these things are potentially also offensive to me and to others.
On the substance of the amendment, I really do appreciate the strength of feeling, as I think I have indicated, and I understand the rationale advanced by right hon. and hon. Members. I draw their attention to clause 1 and the establishment of the office, because the national and cultural identity principles are there, applying to all public authorities, and they should take considerable comfort from that.
The crux of the matter is that the two commissioners each have a very different scope. The Irish language commissioner must have their guidance approved by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting in concert, whereas although there is a power to direct the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner, they can issue what guidance they see fit and across a broader  scope. I could comment further on the exact definition of that scope, but the point is this: were I to accept the DUP amendments, there would be four serious problems.
First, they would create a much more powerful commissioner, with a much broader scope and less accountability to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I think that nationalists could reasonably object that that was out of kilter. We have been trying to stay very close to New Decade, New Approach and to respect its balance. We have the office dealing with issues of identity and the principles, and the two commissioners with different scopes and purposes. That is why we have this very delicate balance.
I just do not think that the amendments would achieve some of the purposes sought—in a heartfelt way—particularly those relating to language, arts and literature. It is difficult to see how some of that would work out in practice. Again, I refer people to the principles. It would be difficult to implement and, on a practical note, it would open the Bill up to ping-pong, which could lead to the whole agreement being unpicked in this House.
I will finish by making three firm commitments to the DUP in particular from the Dispatch Box. First, I will discuss the issues they have raised with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Plainly, these matters need to be addressed. Secondly, we will of course keep the operation of this legislation, when it comes into force, under review. However, I say gently that it is probably for the Assembly to legislate in this area. Thirdly, as hon. Members have seen, I am not afraid to call out intolerable conduct when it arises—for example, I called out the chanting of “up the ’RA”. Without promising to do so on every occasion, because I suspect I would do nothing else, I am absolutely committed to getting involved in this problem.
What I observe is that some of the hurt and the problems will never be dealt with through legislation. What is required is a change of hearts and for people to do as they would be done by. I am sorry that I have not had more time to go through all the amendments in detail, but I have been asked to wrap up my speech at this point.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 136, Noes 276.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - The Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition

Amendment proposed: 1, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
“78SA Duty to have regard to published advice or guidance
(1) A public authority must, in providing services to the public or a section of the public in Northern Ireland, have due regard to any advice or guidance published pursuant to section 78S(2).
(2) A public authority must prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with the duty in subsection (1).
(3) A public authority—
(a) may revise and re-publish the plan if the authority considers it necessary or desirable to do so;
(b) must revise and re-publish the plan if relevant revised advice or guidance is published in accordance with section 78S(2).
(4) In preparing or revising a plan under this section, a public authority must consult the Commissioner.”—(Ian Paisley.)
This amendment would place public authorities under a duty to have regard to advice, support and guidance issued by the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions. It would also require authorities to prepare and publish a plan demonstrating how they will adhere to the duty. This mirrors the duty to have regard provision that applies to the Irish Language Commissioner giving expression to the need for public authorities to give expression to the parity of esteem principle in relation to both Commissioners.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 106, Noes 286.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Concurrent powers and powers of direction

Amendment proposed: 13, page 12, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) In the case of the absence of compliance with regard to identity and language functions by a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department, the Secretary of State must—
(a) act to appoint an Irish Language Commissioner within 30 days, in the case of the First Minister and deputy First Minister not acting jointly to appoint an Irish Language Commissioner as laid out in section 78J of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (as inserted by section 2 of this Act) within 30 days of the legislation coming into force or a vacancy arising;
(b) act within 30 days to approve the best practice standards submitted by the Irish Language Commissioner with or without modifications, in the case of the First Minister and deputy First Minister not approving best practice standards submitted under section 78M of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (as inserted by section 2 of this Act) within 30 days.”—(Claire Hanna.)
These step-in powers for the Secretary of State include a timescale whereby a decision by him or her must be taken. With this amendment the Secretary of State must act within 30 days of progress being restrained.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 279.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clauses 6 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Short title

Amendment made: 19, page 15, line 4, leave out subsection (2)—(Mr. Steve Baker.)
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
Third Reading

Steven Baker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First and foremost, I want to thank everyone involved in the passage of the Bill: the whole House, all the officials, everybody we have engaged with externally, and everybody involved with the negotiation—I am extremely grateful. I know that the Secretary of State would want me to convey his apologies for not being here, but he is of course in Northern Ireland.
The nature of the Bill is that it sets out to be a good-faith implementation of the New Decade, New Approach deal, and I genuinely regret that my friends in the DUP have not been able to support this. Some words have been spoken today that I regret very much.
This should be a day for rejoicing for advocates of the Irish language, and it is very much my hope and ambition that the passage of the Bill will lead to a depoliticisation of the Irish language. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) mentioned the Presbyterian Unionist tradition of support for the Irish language, and I can only express my heartfelt desire for a renewal of that spirit of moving forward by remembering everyone’s common heritage.
As I pledged in Committee, we will certainly keep under review the operation of these measures when they become an Act, but it is properly a matter for the Assembly. I very much hope that the Assembly and the Executive are brought up and running.
Finally, it seems to me that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit for reconciliation in this area of identity and culture, and that just a little bit of love would go a long way.
4.43 pm

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Labour party supports this Bill because it broadly reflects the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which was agreed by all parties. I welcome the fact that the Government, in bringing forward this legislation, have recognised the importance of the commitments made in the agreement. However, I share the disappointment that Westminster is having to legislate on this, rather than the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont. We want all efforts to be made to restore the devolved Government.
The Bill rightly aims to create structures and legal protections for the Irish language and for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition. Its foundations are based in the Good Friday agreement’s principles of equality and respect. Previous debates on this legislation have highlighted the importance of language as part of identity and culture; indeed, the Good Friday agreement recognised that the Irish language and Ulster Scots form part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland. As I have previously said in this Chamber, one need only look at Wales to see the impact of the creation of a clear framework outlining the duties and responsibilities of public bodies in relation to a minority language, and not simply in preserving but in expanding the language and taking some of the political sting out of its promotion. It is my hope that the Bill will ensure that identity and language issues do not belong to just one section of the community or one political outlook but are an important, shared part of Northern Ireland’s rich and diverse culture and heritage. The United Kingdom must stick to its international agreements and we must ensure that the Good Friday Agreement is protected and work towards the restoration of power sharing at Stormont.

Mike Penning: I will detain the House for only a few seconds, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Second Reading I mentioned to those on the Front Bench that I was concerned that British Sign Language, which this House has now placed in statute,  was not in the body of the Bill. Can those on the Treasury Bench make sure that when, as we hope, Stormont is re-established, British Sign Language is used in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Gavin Robinson: I thank you for your chairmanship of the Committee, Mr Deputy Speaker. At this point in the parliamentary consideration of this Bill, I rise in sorrow rather than anger. When I spoke on Second Reading, I departed somewhat from my colleagues by not only trying to embrace the overall impact and ethos of what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach but asking the Government to come back to what was agreed two years ago. When New Decade, New Approach was agreed in 2020, it was the foundation, the bedrock, for the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland. It included not only the provisions, aspects of which we see today, but a commitment on legislating to protect the UK’s single market, yet here we are, with no progress on the main issue. This is destabilising, ensuring that we do not have functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland. Another departure, another stepping away from the basis of what restored our Executive two years ago, and that grieves me.
When we went through the Bill in detail, not only on the Floor of this House but in private meetings with officials over the last 18 months and with the Minister this week and last week, showing exactly how the Bill departs from what was agreed, we were met with indifference or with a response that indicated, “We hear you but we are going to do nothing for you.” I was pleased to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), mention the totality of the relationships involved in the Bill, but the Minister talked about joy for one community.
I know that Members have stayed in the Chamber not to hear my contribution but because of what they expect to come. We cannot support this Bill. We cannot support the departure from that which restored devolution just two years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) indicated that this would be an issue that we as a party would have to revisit, but although we consider—regretfully, sorrowfully—that the proceedings around this Bill have been a charade, we are not going to put the House through the charade of a Third Reading vote. This is an issue that we will have to come back to, because the fine balance that was there two years ago has been shattered by this Bill.

Colum Eastwood: This Bill is a very welcome development. It is not the Irish language Act that we would have liked to see, but it is an important step on the way to recognising that the Irish language is a key part of the identity of many people in our community, and that has to be recognised in law. I am also sorrowful that this was not done in the place where it should have been done. People should be there at work in Stormont, doing the work that they were elected to do, and I am sorrowful that we could not do this in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is a terrible shame that we have had to wait for decades even to get to this  point, and maybe there is a lesson in that. If we keep dragging out these issues, if we keep denying our respect for each other’s diversity, we will keep having to come back to do it this way, which is shameful.
The Irish language has been embraced by people across our community. It was protected, supported and defended by Presbyterians many years ago, and it is now being supported, protected and enriched by people from different backgrounds in east Belfast and right across our community, in the same way that the Ulster Scots tradition and identity has informed my identity and the identity of the people I represent. We should all be big enough to be capable of acknowledging, embracing and celebrating each other’s identity. That is the only way forward for the community we all represent.

Stephen Farry: I will be extremely brief, but I want to thank the Government and all the Members who have supported this Bill. I am pleased and relieved that we are at this stage, because this has been a major saga in our politics. I appreciate there is still a lot of unease and that we have a lot of work still to do in Northern Ireland on reconciliation and building a shared future, but many people in Northern Ireland will warmly welcome the Bill’s passage today. It should have been passed by the Assembly, not to rehearse that point, but Parliament has intervened. Although this is a less desirable route, it is none the less a welcome outcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Merchant Shipping

That the draft Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards for Passenger Ships on Domestic Voyages) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 11 July, be approved.—(Stuart Anderson.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Ramsgate Town Council and Manston Airport

Craig Mackinlay: I rise to present a petition signed by 340 South Thanet residents. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I own 2p of share capital, being a 100% holding in a company called Mama Airlines Ltd. It has never traded, has never so much as owned a bank account and has been dormant since its inception in April 2001. It is like keeping a scrapbook of the patchwork of a former life. The company does not even own an Airfix model of an aircraft, let alone a real one.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons,
The petition of residents of the constituency of South Thanet.
We note the previous spending of £10,000 of local Council taxpayer precept by Ramsgate Town Council to attach themselves to a prior judicial review action to prevent aviation activities at the Manston site.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport has granted the Manston site development consent (a DCO) so that a new cargo hub and associated businesses can be advanced. The project is promoted by RiverOak Strategic Partners Limited and has long enjoyed the support of both Thanet MPs.
Thanet perpetually has unemployment rates and average salaries behind South-East norms. A re-opened airport is expected to bring huge investment of hundreds of millions of pounds. This means new opportunities and a huge number of new jobs.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Ramsgate Town Council to accept the decision of the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, work constructively with the Government, RSP, Thanet’s MPs and other local authorities and elected representatives towards the re-opening of the airport, and to refrain from spending more public money on further legal challenges.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002776]

Diagnostic Hospital: Stockton

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stuart Anderson.)

Matt Vickers: I thank the House for allowing me the opportunity to raise this important and urgent issue, making the case for one of the Government’s new diagnostic hospitals to come to Stockton.
First, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the incredible workforce who are the backbone of my local NHS. Having volunteered during the pandemic and shadowed shifts in my local hospitals, North Tees and James Cook, I have seen at first hand their incredible commitment and dedication; the doctors, nurses, porters, domestic staff, care workers and everyone else each day provide a lifeline to those most in need. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. These people deliver grade A public service and deserve grade A resources and workplaces.
I welcome the fact that a Conservative Government have given the NHS the biggest cash boost in its history. I welcome the incredible difference that this additional £33 billion of funding will make, and I welcome the commitment to build 40 new hospitals by the end of the decade and to create a network of diagnostic hospital hubs to tackle the post-coronavirus backlog. In recent times, I am delighted to have seen tens of millions of pounds of capital investment put into my local hospitals. At South Tees, that has meant, among others things, upgrades to life-saving radiology equipment, and at North Tees we have seen upgrades to our award-winning urgent care centre and the provision of a new respiratory unit.
However, nowhere is investment in healthcare needed more than in my area. There is a debate about health inequalities in this country; this is about the difference in access to care, the impact on people’s quality of life and the differences in the resulting life expectancy. It is an appalling fact that there is a street in Stockton where if someone travels from one end to another, just 5 miles, they pass through two areas where the difference in life expectancy is 20 years! Those living in Yarm in my constituency can be expected to live until the age of 84, whereas those living in Stockton Town Centre, in neighbouring Stockton North, can expect to live, on average, only to the age of 64—that is equivalent to the life expectancy of those living in Ethiopia. That is entirely unacceptable in Britain in 2022; we cannot go on like this.
I realise that a new hospital or diagnostic hub is not the entire solution to this problem, and that it requires interventions from the health service, social services, the local council and other agencies, but investment in our local health service is part of that solution. I have already held an Adjournment debate on the need to improve North Tees hospital and I have talked of the huge maintenance costs that consume the hospital’s budget, the fact our operating theatres are not big enough to house modern robotics and the fact that the hospital is just not fit for the 21st century. Our bid is in to the new build hospital programme, but today I am here to make the case for us to have one of the Government’s new diagnostic hospital hubs.
The pandemic has created a huge pressure on our NHS; with elected surgery paused, the waiting lists and backlogs have grown to unprecedented levels. During a shadow shift at North Tees, I saw the unbelievable challenges facing our doctors as they have to decide which patient’s surgery is the most urgent and who must wait, whether it be the youngster involved in a car accident at the weekend or the elderly person awaiting a hip operation. These are harrowing choices for clinicians to make and we must do everything we can to help tackle that backlog. Among the 88,000 people on waiting lists across North Tees, South Tees and County Durham NHS trusts, more than 2,500 have waited more than a year for an appointment. So as well as pushing the bid for a new hospital at North Tees, I believe Stockton would be the ideal place for one of the Government’s new diagnostic hospital hubs. Such a hub could save lives in my area, by ensuring that people can get the checks and tests they need more quickly. They could get the MRI scan that could detect cancer and ensure they get the treatment they need in time, or the CT—computerised tomography—scan that detects the stroke and ensures the right care to aid their recovery.
I realise that the Minister, and several of her predecessors, may well be sick of hearing from me on these two bids, but I am not the only person who believes this diagnostic hospital hub needs to come to Stockton.
Both North Tees and South Tees NHS trusts have agreed that Stockton should be the home of such a hospital hub. I spent my summer delivering tens of thousands of leaflets and knocking on doors across my constituency, speaking to residents about the plan. Thousands of people signed the petition and backed the plan.Our proposal is to build the new diagnostic hospital in Stockton town centre, which is due to be reconfigured and made fit for the future, thanks to £16.5 million from the Government’s future high streets fund. Putting the hospital hub here will mean that it is accessible to all by public transport, as well as driving footfall and breathing life into our town centre to support the local economy.
It would be remiss of me to discuss this without mentioning the challenges in attracting radiographers to operate and man such a hospital hub.It is great that, thanks to a Conservative Government, there are now 30,000 more doctors and 40,000 more nurses working in our NHS than there were in 2010.However, there remains a problem in attracting radiographers. A chronic workforce shortage means that a diagnostic centre would need additional staffing rather than extracting from the teams already based in acute hospitals.
The north-east is hit worst by these shortages with a vacancy rate of 17%, the highest vacancy rate in England and, worryingly, 90% of those vacancies have been unfilled for more a year. Alongside my plea for a diagnostic hub, I urge the Government to invest in local clinical radiology training places.
This Conservative Government and their levelling-up agenda have meant huge investment in my area, improving infrastructure with upgraded roads, new cycle lanes, railway stations and the saving of our airport. We have seen new jobs and training opportunities delivered through the UK’s first and biggest freeport, supporting the development of a new training hub to upskill local youngsters and increasing investment in local schools.  Tens of millions of pounds of funding have been put in to improve town centres in Stockton, Thornaby, Yarm and—hopefully soon—Billingham.
Now it is time to level up on health, so that people from my area can live long and happy lives and we can eliminate health inequalities that have no place in modern Britain.

Louie French: My hon Friend is making a fantastic speech on the importance of diagnostic hubs in the north of England. Does he agree that that levelling up also applies to areas in the south, particularly my area of Sidcup, where we have also been lobbying for a diagnostic hub? We also need to level up and provide that local service for my hospital, Queen Mary’s, in Sidcup.

Matt Vickers: I agree. I know how much work my hon. Friend has put in to try to seal the deal in his part of the world. I am sure that the Minister will have good news for us all. It is well earned if it is there.
I hope that Ministers will back the bid that has been put forward to provide my area with the much-needed increase in diagnostic capacity so that my local NHS is fit for the future, fit for patients, and fit for its amazing staff. I know that the Government are committed to modernising the NHS and have announced massive investment that will fund healthcare across my region. I know that the Minister is probably sick of hearing from me on this issue, but I will continue to push for the resources we need to tackle the heartbreaking health inequalities that my area faces.
I thank the Minister for her attention and look forward to her response.

Nigel Evans: I call Alex Cunningham.

Alex Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me, especially given that I arrived late.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), my constituency neighbour, on securing this important Adjournment debate. I apologise to him for missing the opening paragraphs of his speech. We do not agree on very much politically, but we agree about the need for improved health provision in the communities that we both serve. I agree that Stockton desperately needs better health provision so that we can tackle the entrenched health inequalities that blight our communities. We have got fantastic staff—the hon. Member referred to them—but they need the support of proper facilities.
I have cited appalling statistics many times on the Floor of the House. I will do that again tonight and keep doing so until the Government take the necessary action. Men in the town centre of Stockton-on-Tees in both my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stockton South live 18 years less than their peers just down the road. In Stockton North, 7.4% of our population suffer from asthma—a higher figure than the 6.5% rate across England. The figure for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in my constituency is 3.1%, again higher than the rate of 1.9% across England. In England, 14.1% of people have high blood pressure. That figure rises to 16.2% in Stockton North. I have been calling for  a new hospital to be built in Stockton for the past 12 years after the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government axed the one we were promised in 2012. In the past 12 years and over the course of the pandemic, the health inequalities in our area have actually grown wider; they have not narrowed.
The hon. Member talked about our town centre in Stockton. We have an innovative local council. The idea of bringing together health and council facilities in the town centre was a tremendous initiative between the council and the North Tees and Hartlepool Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust—a trust that I have had the honour to serve on for some years. I pay tribute to all of its staff for the tremendous work that they have done over the years to get to the point where we just need a final Government decision for this project to go ahead.
There are all manner of reasons why we need the new hospital, but for me it is because we need certainty in our community about the future of structures in the health service. There is now a proposal to merge the chief executive role for North Tees and South Tees hospitals. I am against that, and I want to see a situation where whoever is the chief executive concentrates on delivering for people north of the River Tees—and, of course, part of south of the River Tees served by the hon. Member for Stockton South. It is critical that we achieve that sometime in the near future.
I know that the integrated care board has a tremendous responsibility in all of this, but, again, much of its focus seems to be on structures rather than on getting things done. I hope the Minister will encourage the board to back this tremendous proposal, so that the hon. Member and I can see our constituents get the services that they require, and that we can end these health inequalities that are killing people day in, day out in communities such as ours.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) on securing this debate. He will appreciate that I am standing in for my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who has been promoted to the Cabinet and the Home Office, so I ask him to forgive me if I do not have the answers to all of his questions, but I will ask the Department to write to him with those.
I know that this is an important subject for my hon. Friend and that he works tirelessly for the people of Stockton South on healthcare and on other matters. The waiting time for a diagnosis or an all-clear can be a very anxious one. It is something with which all of us who have been on a waiting list, or who have had a family member, a friend or a loved one on a waiting list, will be familiar. It is right that we do all we can to support services to recover from the pressures of the pandemic and to innovate and improve so that patients can have tests and receive diagnoses in a quicker and more convenient way.
Today, I will outline the work being done through the elective recovery programme to improve access to diagnostics and how that will impact patients across the  UK, including in Stockton South. The waiting list for diagnostic tests in England currently stands at more than 1.5 million patients. Some 30% of those patients are waiting more than six weeks. That is up from a little under 1 million in 2019, before the pandemic. In the north-east and Yorkshire region, the waiting list for diagnostic tests is more than 213,000 patients, 26% of whom have been waiting more than six weeks. Community diagnostic centres are part of the answer and are a fantastic example of how we are providing more efficient, easier and more convenient access to vital services in the community.
The Government have committed £2.3 billion in capital spend as part of the 2021 spending review to support diagnostic services to recover and improve and to ensure that patients have access to often life-saving diagnostic tests that they need. This includes money to allow the NHS to continue to roll out a community diagnostic centre programme across England. This is a new way of delivering care, and it will ensure that elective diagnostic services are resilient in the face of winter pressures, because they have ring-fenced elective diagnostic activity.
Local healthcare systems, including NHS trusts, integrated commissioning boards, and local authorities, which know their patients and communities best, are being empowered to plan and bid for funding for new CDC sites, ensuring that they are placed where there is the greatest community need and the most clinical value, with successful bids ultimately signed off by the Secretary for Health and Social Care. I am pleased to say that 89 CDCs are currently operational across the country in a variety of sites, including hospitals, football stadiums and shopping centres, ensuring that patients have access to the care they need where they live. Those centres and hard-working NHS staff have so far delivered more than 2 million tests and are well on their way to providing capacity for 9 million tests a year by 2025.
With regard to the provision of a community diagnostic centre in Stockton, I am pleased to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the business case for the centre is currently in development. He will be pleased to learn that a large-model CDC, including capacity for imaging, physiological measurements, pathology and endoscopy, is planned for construction on the Castlegate shopping centre site, with plans for the centre to be fully operational by March 2025.
Castlegate is an ideal site for a CDC because of its accessibility for different population groups experiencing health inequalities, with excellent transport links. It is exactly the sort of area where the new centres can have the biggest impact. The Castlegate CDC will add to the 12 existing CDCs in the north-east and Yorkshire region and the four hub and spoke sites in the Tees Valley area, which have delivered more than 200,000 tests for patients in the north-east and Yorkshire region. Ten further sites across the north-east and Yorkshire are due to be approved in the near future and will all be operational by March 2025 to support our target of up to 160 CDCs.
I heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), but I am afraid I do not have the answers for him today. I will ask the Department to write to him with information on his specific bid.

Alex Cunningham: This is music to my ears. We have all worked very hard for this—local authority, health authority and politicians—and I am grateful for the  positive message the Minister is giving us. Now I am going to be even cheekier and say that we desperately need a new general hospital to serve Stockton and the wider Hartlepool area. We need new facilities there. I hope, 12 or 13 years after the original hospital was cancelled, that this Minister will be the one to deliver it.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The building new hospitals programme is in process and bids are in play, so I am afraid I cannot comment any further, as he will appreciate.
In conclusion, I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South to continue his productive conversations with both his local ICB and NHS England to ensure that new developments in Stockton continue to support the local community health needs. I will ensure he is  made aware when the proposal for the new centre has progressed further and when he can expect to see it open in his constituency.
I look forward to continuing to work with NHS England, local NHS systems such as the North East and North Cumbria ICS and fellow Members of the House to ensure that as a Government we meet the challenge posed by diagnostic waiting lists and ensure that patients are able to receive the often life-saving diagnostic tests that they need, as quickly and conveniently as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.